Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.
At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.
A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.
Agree entirely, I use the HS2 route from time to time, and it is already a great service. I leave home in Cumbria at about 7.15am and can be in our office daaaaaaaaahn The Strand, 'avin a knees-up with Mother Brown, before 11. I have no idea how 20 minutes off that is worth £800squillion. But we apparently can't afford electrification to Windermere, which probably wouldn't even cost the PR budget for HS2.
I'm actually generally supportive of HS2; more capacity is desperately needed and about 25% of the £60bn is actually contingency funding, so hopefully actual costs should be lower. Everyone forgets that they spent £15bn on the West Coast upgrade to get only 10% more capacity, when passenger numbers pretty much doubled in the same period; we simply can't squeeze much more out of existing routes. But it needs to be done in addition to local rail improvements NOT instead of.
I personally think they should have started with the northern triangle (Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield+Leeds), before building the connection to London, as it would have given the biggest improvements first. Unfortunately phase 1 is too far along, so better to press on and get into phase 2 ASAP.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.
I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.
I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
The country IS going to the dogs!
You weren't shot down for the argument you were making, you were shot down because you backed your argument up with three newspaper articles about isolated incidents. I'll also note that you're now totally OK with the eggheads when they agree with you.
Further, an increase in crime still isn't the same as backing up the claims you just made, that the British public is "cowed and fearful of crime" or that your judiciary is at "breaking point"
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.
I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.
I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
The country IS going to the dogs!
You weren't shot down for the argument you were making, you were shot down because you backed your argument up with three newspaper articles about isolated incidents. I'll also note that you're now totally OK with the eggheads when they agree with you.
Further, an increase in crime still isn't the same as backing up the claims you just made, that the British public is "cowed and fearful of crime" or that your judiciary is at "breaking point"
When the facts change, I change my opinion, as somebody once said. Yes, you were right to criticise me for focusing on local crime, but we now have hard facts to back up the viewpoint that national crime is on the rise.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Further, an increase in crime still isn't the same as backing up the claims you just made, that the British public is "cowed and fearful of crime" or that your judiciary is at "breaking point"
When the facts change, I change my opinion, as somebody once said. Yes, you were right to criticise me for focusing on local crime, but we now have hard facts to back up the viewpoint that national crime is on the rise.
You can't argue with hard facts
You can certainly argue with the conclusions drawn from them (e.g whether people are 'cowed and fearful' or the whether the judiciary is at 'breaking point'), though, and statistics and facts aren't necesarily the same thing: although crime figures have risen, and most voices concede that it is in part representative of a genuine increase in the occurence of certain crimes, the majority of the statistical increase is in fact down to recording.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.
I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.
I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
The country IS going to the dogs!
You weren't shot down for the argument you were making, you were shot down because you backed your argument up with three newspaper articles about isolated incidents. I'll also note that you're now totally OK with the eggheads when they agree with you.
Further, an increase in crime still isn't the same as backing up the claims you just made, that the British public is "cowed and fearful of crime" or that your judiciary is at "breaking point"
When the facts change, I change my opinion, as somebody once said. Yes, you were right to criticise me for focusing on local crime, but we now have hard facts to back up the viewpoint that national crime is on the rise.
You can't argue with hard facts
You're still sidestepping the fact that a crime rise doesn't have to mean that the British public is "cowering". Further, your "hard facts" are anything but "hard". For all we know reporting might have gone up while actual crime has remained constant. We know there has been an increase in the amount of reported crimes, but we don't know the cause.
You've now first tried to use local newspaper stories as proof of national trends and then tried to draw conclusions from data that just isn't supported by the data. Stop. Get your game together and make a proper argument. We usually don't agree, but you're usually a lot better than this.
Besides HS2 is very important, people need to leave Birmingham as quickly as possible!
In all seriousness, I dunno. I don't really feel qualified to comment on the whole HS2 thing. It seems one of those complicated subjects with lots of nuance and after effects and reprecussions, good and otherwise to fairly fit into a Newspaper headline or soundbite.
It just sounds like a pile of mess. But we probably can't pack up and move on.
High speed trains do sound fun, they'll looks amazing as they trundle along and I watch from my motorcycle.
As the way things are going, I won't be able to afford a ticket before long. Its cheaper for me to drive to Cardiff and back than it is to get a return trip, and my bike isn't exactly the most fuel efficient of machine.
I went to a lecture on future rail development in the UK a fair few years ago, when they were just starting to develop the plans for HS2; the lecturer put up a map of the UK with every conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty, site of special scientific interest, etc. etc. There is nowhere in the country you can build anything without hitting something.
His point was, we had two options; pick a route and provide compensation to everyone on it or delay the project several years and spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a public inquiry, which would then pick a route and provide compensation to everyone on it. Guess which option we choose
Whirlwind wrote: ...I'm generally of the view that state pensions should be means tested. It seems unreasonable that someone on a £50k pension should still be entitled to the same state pension as someone that has no private pension. I also think the state pension is ludicrously low for those that have no other income. My view is that the basic pension would rise to match the minimum wage (lets say £12000) but that the state only supports paying it to top up a private pension up to a certain point (lets say £18,000 as an example). As such if you have a private pension of £12000 you'd be entitled to a state pension of £6000. I also think you should roll all the remaining benefits into this as well. So free bus passes, winter allowance, TV licence and so on should all be incorporated into an aggregated amount. The principle is that those on low incomes get the support they need, those that don't need it don't have that same support as they don't need it.
I agree with Kilkrazy, if you've earned it, you should keep it. It would be galling in the extreme for someone who has worked hard to put in £2-400 a month into a private pension for decades to receive a much reduced, or removed State pension which puts them on the same level of pension income as someone who didn't, or couldn't, save that amount each month.
As it is many people factor in their State pension entitlement when calculating how much to pay into their private pension, and the overwhelming majority of people that would be affected by this would be normal working Joes.
Ive heard that many of the wealthy refuse their state pension entitlement anyway. Don't know how true that is, but I can imagine that many wouldn't even notice £150 a week.
The problem here is where does that stop? I think we get too hung up on NI contributions go towards pensions etc but it doesn't really. It's just a type of tax that goes into one big pot and then gets spent as the Government of the day determines is best (in theory at least) for the populace. You could (and really should) get rid of NI and just introduce one tax (there would probably be savings in introducing that straight away as you can get rid of the machinery managing it). The NI you pay today goes towards supporting todays pensioners, it does not get put away by the government into an investment fund so we can get a pension tomorrow (which in theory happens with your private pension). If you consider it a tax to support society then why should you not be entitled to job seekers allowance or income support etc etc as you are paying into these systems as is. However simply our pension system is barely affordable now and will not be tomorrow (and even more so if we cut back on immigration to tens of thousands. One option is to raise the pension age. This adversely impacts the poorest as they have to work longer because they cannot support a private pension to keep them comfortable. The wealthy still pay partially because they retire early and take a hit on their private pension, but overall it's an inconvenience not a disaster. The poorest cannot do this. You then end up encouraging a two tier system. The poorest work until they die after they wear out and the wealthy get to retire (and likely because of the wealth) live longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: I went to a lecture on future rail development in the UK a fair few years ago, when they were just starting to develop the plans for HS2; the lecturer put up a map of the UK with every conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty, site of special scientific interest, etc. etc. There is nowhere in the country you can build anything without hitting something.
His point was, we had two options; pick a route and provide compensation to everyone on it or delay the project several years and spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a public inquiry, which would then pick a route and provide compensation to everyone on it. Guess which option we choose
That is only thinking two dimensionally though. You could design an underground line, that is say 1/5 - 1/4 of a mile down. Yes it's more expensive but you avoid all the hassle of public enquiries and compensation and there is limited environmental impact. You can then also connect it to existing hubs relatively easily. There's an assumption that rail lines have to go on the ground and it is limiting.
Rail professionals are also worried about the future of electrification of the network. Mainly because any future shortfalls in energy production will directly impact the running of services.
Ask many and the recent announcement that certain lines will run 'duel fuel' was met with a little relief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Crossrail is now at a point where the capacity it was to provide has now been negated- or will be in a few short years.
Mr. Burning wrote: Rail professionals are also worried about the future of electrification of the network. Mainly because any future shortfalls in energy production will directly impact the running of services.
Ask many and the recent announcement that certain lines will run 'duel fuel' was met with a little relief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Crossrail is now at a point where the capacity it was to provide has now been negated- or will be in a few short years.
That's an inevitability of projects like these. Some bypasses don't happen because the models show that they can draw traffic to an area and actually make things worse than better after a relatively short period of time. Basically by introducing the bypass/improvement it encourages more people to use that option over others. That cycle then repeats as you introduce more infrastructure in a specific area. What you really want to do is ensure that there is less reason to all congregate in one area (e.g. London and the South East) as that results in less pressure on the area at over capacity and utilises better those areas which are under used in terms of capacity.
This is the same problem HS2 will face and Heathrow faces and so on. It will 'beautiful' for 5-10 years and then as it draws more and more people in to use it will be a cramped, smelly, hell hole for passengers and the same arguments will repeat all over again. That is why there is a lot of argument for expanding services elsewhere in the country because it avoids avoidable internal migration. It largely comes back to lack of long term planning by successive governments, they see a problem and try and treat the effect rather than the cause and by doing so they continue and exacerbate the long term problems.
Still with global warming accelerating London will be under water soon enough (hurrah...?) and HS2 will be akin to a log flume rather than anything useful.
A long time ago I proposed that London should be roofed over with a massive concrete shield to provide maximum possible capacity for the movement and parking of motor vehicles.
Although this plan was not adopted, it can logically be seen that transforming the entire city into road transport still does not provide unlimited capacity for expansion.
It follows that there is a limit to the expansion of transport infrastructure in any one region (even teleportation, as imagined in Larry Niven's "Flash Crowd" stories) so that other areas of the UK will need to be brought into consideration. About 2/3rds of the population of the UK lives outside the south-east.
One of the important criticisms of HS1 and HS2 is that the building of high speed lines to "the provinces" in various countries historically has tended to draw more traffic into the centre rather than share it out to the periphery.
Regional growth cannot be stimulated by such a strategy, and regional growth translates into national growth.
Mr. Burning wrote: Rail professionals are also worried about the future of electrification of the network. Mainly because any future shortfalls in energy production will directly impact the running of services.
Simultaneously the government has announced a new energy technology initiative that takes advantage of the rapid development of small scale renewable energy (like solar panels on house roofs) to radically reduce the dependence of the UK on the national grid's major power stations (such as the not yet built Hinkley Point B reactor.) This naturally will release capacity for running major systems such as electric railways.
Sometimes I fething despair about our government's strategic planning ability. Actually, I fething despair quite a lot, and I don't think it's just my age.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can tell the "silly season" has started...
Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
If those 16000 people only live for 6 years then yeah. Otherwise no.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
If those 16000 people only live for 6 years then yeah. Otherwise no.
I'm one step ahead because I backtracked earlier
Alright, so I'm revising my original figure of 1 million down somewhat
but even paying 16,000 people the average wage of 30 grand a year for life would be cheaper.
High speed rail up and down the country (i.e. not just to Birmingham) would have huge benefits for people above air travel (which to be fair, is awful).
Internal air travel is only so popular because it's the quickest option currently. But you've still got to get to the first airport ~2 hours early to get through security and wait for takeoff, and then you're easily 30-60 minutes from the city you're visiting. And you can carry very little stuff with you.
So whilst it's only a 90 minute flight from Edinburgh to London, the journey (centre to centre) is actually about 5 hours.
I can get a train from centre to centre from about 4 hours 22 minutes. I don't need to make 3 transfers, get groped by security or pay a fortune for food/drink, and can bring all my stuff with me.
The closer you get to London the better trains look.
We'd still need to shave 25-50% off the journey time (and 75% of the cost) before I can do day trips to London via train.
Trains (where electrified at least) are a lot better for the environment than planes too. So we should be throwing massive investment into rail.
Take Japan for example - you can get a train from pretty much anywhere to anywhere at any time, at speeds we can barely dream of.
I'm all for HS2, on the basis that we need to do something, and that it'll be followed up by HS3, 4 & 5.
We should probably get everything electrified first, though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
If those 16000 people only live for 6 years then yeah. Otherwise no.
I'm one step ahead because I backtracked earlier
Alright, so I'm revising my original figure of 1 million down somewhat
but even paying 16,000 people the average wage of 30 grand a year for life would be cheaper.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
If those 16000 people only live for 6 years then yeah. Otherwise no.
Depends on whether you take the budget or likely final cost...
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
Yeah, we shouldn't be paying them subsidies if they are making a profit, that's mental.
Subsidies to keep them afloat because they are providing a necessary service, but it'd be better to just let them fail (as it's obviously not a viable model privately) and then re-nationalize them.
But then I think everything you count as necessary (health, trains, roads, electricity, gas, water, sewage, police, fire brigade, prisons, postal service) should be state owned, if not state run. Especially if they are likely to also be a monopoly (like trains).
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
It's an utter shambles.
We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, we shouldn't be paying them subsidies if they are making a profit, that's mental.
Subsidies to keep them afloat because they are providing a necessary service, but it'd be better to just let them fail (as it's obviously not a viable model privately) and then re-nationalize them.
But then I think everything you count as necessary (health, trains, roads, electricity, gas, water, sewage, police, fire brigade, prisons, postal service) should be state owned, if not state run. Especially if they are likely to also be a monopoly (like trains).
Privatization of key utilities and services has to be one of the greatest acts of criminality ever inflicted on the British public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I would just like my grandchildren to have decent trains around Wales.
Like want to rreduce our carbon footprint? Build more trains!
Your grand-children will probably be using jet packs and teleporters by then
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
It's an utter shambles.
We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.
We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services including France, Poland, Spain, Germany etc.
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
It's an utter shambles.
We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.
We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services.
It makes sense to have track and train under one roof, as long term rail infrastructure projects can then be properly planned out.
Plus, i want to see Branson's Virgin trains getting a boot up the rear
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
It's an utter shambles.
We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.
This is a complete fallacy spread under Brexit nonsense. East coast mainline was in public ownership for years (and profitable) whilst we were in the EU. As noted other EU countries still manage their own public transport systems. It was bullgak like this that is trying to persuade people Brexit is a good idea and either is lack of awareness or deliberately misleading. The only thing the EU requires is that if you put it out to the private market then you have to undertake an appropriate procurement exercise to give every European company an equal chance of applying for it. If you bring the service in house there is absolutely no requirement to do this. The reason that rails are in private hands is simply because the Tories wanted to hand the money over to private businesses (arguably to favour their donors, or less cynically to make them more 'efficient' and break the backs of the unions). However the decision was entirely, and always has been, the British governments decision - blaming it on the EU is just EU bashing to try and promote an agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Building HS2 30 years ago would have made sense. Now, in this age of cheap flights, automated cars on the war, and high speed broadband? It's a white elephant in the making
They're saying that 16,000 jobs will be created from 100 billion of spending.
You could probably pay those 16,000 a million a year for life to never work again, and still have billions left over.
A better way of looking at it, is that it is cash for an extra 130,000 nurses per year being paid about £26,000 pa (gross cost to the tax payer of about £30k pa) for 25 years. £100bn/25 = £4bn pa / 30000 = 133,333
I'm still utterly baffled that nationalised running of a previously failing rail line turned a profit for the nation, and was then sold on. Again.
Insanity.
Because ideology.
And because the ministers who make the decisions and the civil servants who implement them, end up with very agreeable non-exec roles with the companies in question.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
I find it morally obscene that something like HS2 is having billions upon billions of public money spent on it, only to be handed over to a private company to juice it for as much profit as they can.
Decent public transport infrastructure is a must for any civilised country. It helps the workforce maximise it's potential, and spreads wealth further away from centralised locations.
Look at commuting to London. The prices are frankly obscene. If the rail company's profits take a dip, they jack up the price to cover the shortfall, because commuters rarely have a viable alternative to using the rail network. And they claim government subsidies, which seem to get rolled up in their profit margin. That's right. We're collectively paying them to rip us off.
It's an utter shambles.
We need to Brexit before we can take back the trains.
We really don't. As long as the companies running the trains and the tracks are separate and that there is the possibility for private firms to request access to the tracks, we can nationalise our rail services. This is how multiple EU countries are running nationalised rail services.
It makes sense to have track and train under one roof, as long term rail infrastructure projects can then be properly planned out.
They can be under one roof: the Government's
The whole thing about them being separate is because infrastructure+maintenance is expected to run at a loss more or less all the time, and being constantly subsidized while actual transport activity can turn a profit if it's managed well (in busy lines and HS, at least. More rural routes also need to be subsidised).
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Why not run them as one system with the proffit from the main lines and such used to invest and maintain the network...
Its not rocket science, needs far grants, money being planned etc.
Everything under one umbrella with various lines, track, trains, and procurement/investment sectors linked together working alongside the bus, tram, ferry/chunnel and the airports management to interlink a fully effective network.
And another rant while I'm in the mood. In the unlikely event of people noticing where I had gone this past week, I was in England for a short holiday.
Now, certain sections of the media would have you believe that Brexit has caused deep divisions in the nation, with Britain on the verge of civil war.
And yet, whilst in England, I couldn't help notice how normal things were.
There were no mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets so they could burn them at the stake.
The British Union of Fascists weren't holding branch meetings, and the House of Commons wasn't voting on banning the Indian Congress party.
So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?
Everything seemed normal. England's green and pleasent land was green and pleasent.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.
I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.
Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.
It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.
I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.
Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.
It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.
Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.
Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.
The problem is that this sort of justification, valid or not, is what leads to the 'mission creep' that makes so many uncomfortable with the EU. If 'it might potentially impact a neighbour in some vague way in the future' is sufficient justification for the the EU to interfere a country's internal affairs, that reason can be extended as an automatic response to practically anything. And it frequently is. With the natural result that the more the EU has to do with things, the more that other members can be potentially affected by events, and so the more the EU inevitably becomes involved.
It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
I think myself, and a lot of other people would have our concerns put at rest if the EU could just draw up a mission statement saying 'We deal with X, Y, & Z', and then sticking firmly to it; instead of constantly trying to tear off little pieces of internal matters and subsume them into itself on grounds like the reason given above. Either that, or just have the 'Do you want the United States of Europe' vote, fairly and honestly. If it was a solid enough proposal with sufficient safeguards and checks, I might even vote for it.
Instead though, the EU continues to swell inch by inch, budget increasing year on year & remit continually expanding.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.
I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.
Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.
It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.
I apologize in advance for the Godwin, but we stayed stable democracies when Nazi Germany went wild. Does that mean we wouldn't have had any interest in stopping them from coming to power?
The separation of the judiciary from the control of the legislature is one of the fundamental features of the rule of law. You're advocating that the EU should sit idly by while Poland dismantles the rule of law because internal affairs apparently are sacrosanct.
Except a decline in the prospects of Poland will have a knock on effect to its neighbours, in the form of greater movement of people from Poland to other EU countries along with all of the effects that would cause. When Poland was communist, that effectively couldn't happen.
The problem is that this sort of justification, valid or not, is what leads to the 'mission creep' that makes so many uncomfortable with the EU. If 'it might potentially impact a neighbour in some vague way in the future' is sufficient justification for the the EU to interfere a country's internal affairs, that reason can be extended as an automatic response to practically anything. And it frequently is. With the natural result that the more the EU has to do with things, the more that other members can be potentially affected by events, and so the more the EU inevitably becomes involved.
It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
I think myself, and a lot of other people would have our concerns put at rest if the EU could just draw up a mission statement saying 'We deal with X, Y, & Z', and then sticking firmly to it; instead of constantly trying to tear off little pieces of internal matters and subsume them into itself on grounds like the reason given above.
Except what the EU is now doing with Poland is within X, Y & Z as you name it. Poland entered the EU agreeing to a series of conditions on democracy and rule of law (article 2) and giving the EU enforcement powers (article 7)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And another rant while I'm in the mood. In the unlikely event of people noticing where I had gone this past week, I was in England for a short holiday.
Now, certain sections of the media would have you believe that Brexit has caused deep divisions in the nation, with Britain on the verge of civil war.
And yet, whilst in England, I couldn't help notice how normal things were.
There were no mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets so they could burn them at the stake.
The British Union of Fascists weren't holding branch meetings, and the House of Commons wasn't voting on banning the Indian Congress party.
So what happened to a tidal wave of xenophobia? The British Empire reborn? Foreigners fleeing for their lives?
Everything seemed normal. England's green and pleasent land was green and pleasent.
When you engage in hyperbole, you're inevitably going to be disappointed.
Needless to say, gobshites are flexing their vocal muscles, and ignorant opinion is now vaunted as commentary. Just listen to the hateful bs spouted by the overly opinionated arse wipe Paul Watson. The man is a fething world class bell end, with the political acumen of a cerebrally stunted lug worm.
He's now considered by many as some sort of truth sayer, a sanctuary of rationality and common sense in a world beset with liberalism and equality. However, the reality is, he's a c@#t.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
This is exactly the point I was making a few weeks back about the expanding bureaucracy and its thirst for power.
Another case in point is Poland.
Here we have an unelected vice-president of the EU commission laying down the law to the elected government of Poland! WTF!!
I happen to disagree with the Polish government and its treatment of the judiciary, but that is an internal matter for the Polish people, not some desk jockey in EUHQ!
By that logic no one's allowed to intervene if Germany decides to go all Vierte Reich and starts shooting people in Germany. It's an internal affair after all, no? Or, we could stop pretending that neighbouring countries don't have an interest in making sure Poland's democracy doesn't explode and cause the rest of us a bunch of trouble.
I'm not buying that argument. Britain and Sweden are two of the most strongest and stable democracies in Europe. Even when Poland was communist, our respective nations didn't break out the red flag becuase of events in Poland and I can't see them being effected by this turn of events.
Even nearby nations like Austria and Germany will be unaffected IMO because of the strength of their democracies and civil society.
It's a storm in a teacup and the EU should step back IMO.
I apologize in advance for the Godwin, but we stayed stable democracies when Nazi Germany went wild. Does that mean we wouldn't have had any interest in stopping them from coming to power?
The separation of the judiciary from the control of the legislature is one of the fundamental features of the rule of law. You're advocating that the EU should sit idly by while Poland dismantles the rule of law because internal affairs apparently are sacrosanct.
The Polish people have a long and proud history of fighting oppression. I have faith in them not to slide into some tyranny.
And yes, I agree that the independence of the judiciary is crucial in a democracy, so I hope Poland sorts this put.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
It's its business to make legislation on issues that elected representatives of those nations have gotten together and decided that it should legislate on. I think that's a bit guff, but then I don't believe in parliamentary representative democracy. I you do, it's kinda hard to argue that the EU has no business being involved in issues that representative democracies have decided it should have business in.
What happens to British rail is for the British government, elected by the British people, not some pen pusher in Brussels.
The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.
The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.
As it's been pointed out before, the EU parliament is a sham of a parliament. It's the world's most expensive rubber stamper.
As for the commission, true, the individuals involved are appointed by their respective government, but their detachment and distance from the man on the street is still pretty big.
I believe the closer the people are to democracy, the better democracy is, especially in terms of accountability.
Example pre-Brexit for the UK.
Average person -- MEP---EU Parliament---EU Commission--- Random EU president
After Brexit: average person---MP---House of Commons
Throw in the odd councillor or MSP for Scotland, and it's clear that the distance between the electorate and the elected, will be better and shorter post-Brexit.
The 'pen pusher' remark is a straw man. You're aware, I'm sure, that the European Parliament is comprised of elected parliamentarians, and the Commission is comprised of individuals appointed by elected governments, like any high ranking civil servant.
As it's been pointed out before, the EU parliament is a sham of a parliament. It's the world's most expensive rubber stamper.
As for the commission, true, the individuals involved are appointed by their respective government, but their detachment and distance from the man on the street is still pretty big.
I believe the closer the people are to democracy, the better democracy is, especially in terms of accountability.
Example pre-Brexit for the UK.
Average person -- MEP---EU Parliament---EU Commission--- Random EU president
After Brexit: average person---MP---House of Commons
Throw in the odd councillor or MSP for Scotland, and it's clear that the distance between the electorate and the elected, will be better and shorter post-Brexit.
That is good for British democracy IMO.
I agree that the closer to democracy the average person is, the better.
However, in reality, it's currently:
Me - Councillors - Council - Constituency MSP/List MSPs/MP - Hollyrood/Westminster (and a pile of unelected civil servants and quangos) - European parliament - Commission
Importantly, the first two stages of this don't have many people in them. The people whom it is easy to interact with are thin on the ground and have little time to deal with constituents. Relatively, there's loads of folks in the middle stages. The UK is one of the worst nations in the developed world for that. We have thousands of residents for each elected politician (and we have major drives to reduce the numbers of elected persons further). France has a couple hundred.
Brexit isn't going to do anything at all to fix this. If you want to be closer to democracy, you want lots more elected officials, not to simply remove the top two tiers of them so that everyone involved is a bit closer to you geographically.
Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:
A very small minority of radical Islamists or extreme right-wingers who have been engaging in this for years?
Could the criteria for what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident have changed? I don't know.
When you think of anti semitism you may think if new nazis and right wing, buts it exists on the left as well. The opposition to capitalism ties into the perception that jews are greedy and many of the richest people and companies/banks happen to be jewish controlled. Also the way some on the left cheer for Palestine leads to some quite anti semitic comments - beyond just commentary on Israeli policy.
I don't necessarily believe either are linked to brexit, a lot of increases in anything is due to increased reporting or method of data collection.
Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:
A very small minority of radical Islamists or extreme right-wingers who have been engaging in this for years?
Could the criteria for what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident have changed? I don't know.
When you think of anti semitism you may think if new nazis and right wing, buts it exists on the left as well. The opposition to capitalism ties into the perception that jews are greedy and many of the richest people and companies/banks happen to be jewish controlled. Also the way some on the left cheer for Palestine leads to some quite anti semitic comments - beyond just commentary on Israeli policy.
I don't necessarily believe either are linked to brexit, a lot of increases in anything is due to increased reporting or method of data collection.
Ken Livingstone acting like a is one thing, but is it a sign of anti-Semitism gripping the left?
Anti semitism isn't 'gripping' the left, I didn't say that at all, just that it isn't unique to the right wing. Ken Livingstone who is a bit irrelevant, and seems more confused and clumsy than being anti Semitic. I don't think that Labour has an anti semitism problem, but the left wing is broad and fractured.
I've seen outright anti semitic comments made by people on the left, I noticed a bit thinking back to the Occupy protests and protests against bankers.
At any rate, anti-semitism is only a symptom of a much larger problem damaging this nation: the break down of law and order.
The first duty of any government is defence of the realm and then upholding the rule of law. The Tories have failed on this.
A few days ago, we learned that crime is on the increase across this great nation.
Today, on the BBC website, I learn that violence in prisons is on the up, and that prison guards were taken ill from drug fumes wafting through our prisons.
I also learned that prisoners were being let out early! Was that an honest mistake? Or prisoners tricking the authorities into early release?
I don't know anymore
Drug driving is on the up. Cybercrime. You name it. It's like Dark Age Britain.
Even if we catch and convict criminals, we can't even keep the fethers under lock and key any more!
You've heard me bang this drum many a time, but I ask my fellow dakka members this question:
what does UK stand for? United Kingdom or uncontrolled krimewave?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: At any rate, anti-semitism is only a symptom of a much larger problem damaging this nation: the break down of law and order.
The rest of this post is like the Daily Mail Headline Generator. But on this point, when exactly did the breakdown of law and order start? When was it great? Because I'm going to have a wager than whenever it was, anti-Semitism, and certainly racism directed at other groups, was way worse.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: At any rate, anti-semitism is only a symptom of a much larger problem damaging this nation: the break down of law and order.
The first duty of any government is defence of the realm and then upholding the rule of law. The Tories have failed on this.
A few days ago, we learned that crime is on the increase across this great nation.
Today, on the BBC website, I learn that violence in prisons is on the up, and that prison guards were taken ill from drug fumes wafting through our prisons.
I also learned that prisoners were being let out early! Was that an honest mistake? Or prisoners tricking the authorities into early release?
I don't know anymore
Drug driving is on the up. Cybercrime. You name it. It's like Dark Age Britain.
Even if we catch and convict criminals, we can't even keep the fethers under lock and key any more!
You've heard me bang this drum many a time, but I ask my fellow dakka members this question:
what does UK stand for? United Kingdom or uncontrolled krimewave?
Jeez,
drug driving - It has only been since 2015 that this has been a target for police figures. And is only made viable due to developments in drug testing kit. Previously drug driving relied on the police giving 'drug drivers' tests such as standing on one leg. There is a concern that there are big differences between forces in how they tackle this crime - Budget and responses to ratings and targets drives this.
Violence in prison is increasing due to overcrowding and the lack of opportnity for inmates. Directly tied to constantly cutting funding AND a highly politicised view of what to do with inmates. If you really want to know the kind of conditions and people that are inside PM me.
Early releases? The blame is directly laid at the door of the prison service and NOMS. Incompetence ahoy.
These are fair points, but as always, I say this: never overlook perception.
There is clearly a malaise gripping the UK, and the perception is that it's bad and getting worse.
Only today I read in the local paper that an armed gang robbed a hotel
People are fearful, OAPs are scared witless, and we officially know that police numbers are down, prisons are packed to the rafters, and our weak and incompetent government seem unable or unwilling to fulfill government's primary duty: defence of realm, property, and the rule of law.
This perception will have negative consequnces not only at home, but abroad.
Who will invest in an increasingly corrupt and crime-ridden Britain?
This is beyond domestic politics - this is international now!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: These are fair points, but as always, I say this: never overlook perception.
There is clearly a malaise gripping the UK, and the perception is that it's bad and getting worse.
Only today I read in the local paper that an armed gang robbed a hotel
People are fearful, OAPs are scared witless, and we officially know that police numbers are down, prisons are packed to the rafters, and our weak and incompetent government seem unable or unwilling to fulfill government's primary duty: defence of realm, property, and the rule of law.
This perception will have negative consequnces not only at home, but abroad.
Who will invest in an increasingly corrupt and crime-ridden Britain?
This is beyond domestic politics - this is international now!
Your perception is skewed by your own slanted viewpoint and consumption of the media?
Sadly, anti-Semitism existed in the UK long before we joined the EU/EEC, so can Brexit be blamed for this? What about other mitigating factors:
If you read the article it shows that anti-semitic attacks have increased hugely since Brexit.
Brexit was immediately followed by a wave of anti-foreigner and also anti-semitism. Brexit legitimised anti-foreigner hatred among a section of the population who previously had been suppressed by public opinion.
There aren't any mitigating factors.
But if you want to look at history for a guide, it's only in the past 100 years that the UK had a policy of stopping immigration, so Brexit is a weird aberration.
Anti-semitic attacks have been having a large uptick for some time now, long before Brexit appeared on the horizon. There was a discussion on here about it some three and a half years ago. The two topics are quite unrelated if you examine the trend. If there's one group of people nobody's ever felt the need to be legitimised to attack, throughout history and across the world, it's the Jews.
Here's the number of recorded attacks since 1997.
To insert the missing figures, there were 960 incidents in 2015, and 1,309 in 2016. In 2016, the incidents were spread uniformly throughout the year, both before and after the referendum. (source is the CST report).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: These are fair points, but as always, I say this: never overlook perception.
There is clearly a malaise gripping the UK, and the perception is that it's bad and getting worse.
Only today I read in the local paper that an armed gang robbed a hotel
People are fearful, OAPs are scared witless, and we officially know that police numbers are down, prisons are packed to the rafters, and our weak and incompetent government seem unable or unwilling to fulfill government's primary duty: defence of realm, property, and the rule of law.
This perception will have negative consequnces not only at home, but abroad.
Who will invest in an increasingly corrupt and crime-ridden Britain?
This is beyond domestic politics - this is international now!
The actual figures paint a different picture however.
You are less likely as an individual to be affected by crime. However by pure numbers crime is going up because there are more people in the Country. Hence both the idea that crime is rising is in someways (there are more crimes) but because a lot are reported in the media it provides the perception that we are at more risk of crime when we are not. 0.01% of a million is a lot more crimes than 10% of one hundred, but you are at much greater risk of being affected in the latter than the former. However you will hear a lot more about them in the former scenario as it provides more news worthy stories.
As for who will invest in Britain, I think most will be more worried about the mess the government is making of Wrexit than the risk of crime.
Ketara wrote: Anti-semitic attacks have been having a large uptick for some time now, long before Brexit appeared on the horizon. There was a discussion on here about it some three and a half years ago. The two topics are quite unrelated if you examine the trend. If there's one group of people nobody's ever felt the need to be legitimised to attack, throughout history and across the world, it's the Jews.
Here's the number of recorded attacks since 1997.
To insert the missing figures, there were 960 incidents in 2015, and 1,309 in 2016. In 2016, the incidents were spread uniformly throughout the year, both before and after the referendum. (source is the CST report).
More support for the Brexit theory. The support for Brexit was partly xenophobic. As it grew, there was more pressure for the referendum. The referendum campaign featured a lot of xenophobia.
Once the referendum result appeared to legitimise xenophobia, it was given more leash. Xenophobic crimes increased.
More support for the Brexit theory. The support for Brexit was partly xenophobic. As it grew, there was more pressure for the referendum. The referendum campaign featured a lot of xenophobia.
Once the referendum result appeared to legitimise xenophobia, it was given more leash. Xenophobic crimes increased.
Remember the "Enemies of the People".
Errr......I'm sorry, I see absolutely no evidence for that view. That's nothing more than assuming correlation is causation.
Ketara wrote: Anti-semitic attacks have been having a large uptick for some time now, long before Brexit appeared on the horizon. There was a discussion on here about it some three and a half years ago. The two topics are quite unrelated if you examine the trend. If there's one group of people nobody's ever felt the need to be legitimised to attack, throughout history and across the world, it's the Jews.
Here's the number of recorded attacks since 1997.
To insert the missing figures, there were 960 incidents in 2015, and 1,309 in 2016. In 2016, the incidents were spread uniformly throughout the year, both before and after the referendum. (source is the CST report).
The variations here aren't statistically significant at the three sigma level. The median of the data is 533.5 incidents per year with a standard deviation of about 239.9. That means the number of incidents needs to be above about 1250 to be 99% confident that any year on year variation is not just due to statistical effects (i.e. anything below this value has a high chance of just being a 'natural' year by year variation)
More support for the Brexit theory. The support for Brexit was partly xenophobic. As it grew, there was more pressure for the referendum. The referendum campaign featured a lot of xenophobia.
Once the referendum result appeared to legitimise xenophobia, it was given more leash. Xenophobic crimes increased.
Remember the "Enemies of the People".
Errr......I'm sorry, I see absolutely no evidence for that view. That's nothing more than assuming correlation is causation.
Lord Ashcroft poll on why people voted Wrexit...
"•Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
33% of people voting Wrexit did so over immigration fears.
The variations here aren't statistically significant at the three sigma level. The median of the data is 533.5 incidents per year with a standard deviation of about 239.9. That means the number of incidents needs to be above about 1250 to be 99% confident that any year on year variation is not just due to statistical effects (i.e. anything below this value has a high chance of just being a 'natural' year by year variation)
I'm sure that reassures all the people who are very clearly suffering considerably more abuse on average than they did two decades ago.
I mean, using that sort of statistical analysis, even the rise of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany wouldn't be 'statistically significant'. Which says a lot about its utility in scenarios such as this.
"•Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
33% of people voting Wrexit did so over immigration fears.
And? Most Jews were already here and not visibly Jewish. They integrate and make themselves inconspicuous. Very deliberately. They don't walk around wearing yarmulkhs (unless they're seriously frum).
Seriously, go and read any of the reports on the matter if you want to start digging into motivations behind anti-semitism in Britain. Christ knows there's enough of them, by actual experts. 'Those damn Europeans taking our jobs' doesn't tend to be listed among the reasons for chucking a brick through a synagogue window with a swastika on it or shouting at the local Rabbi about world dominating money hungry Jews.
More support for the Brexit theory. The support for Brexit was partly xenophobic. As it grew, there was more pressure for the referendum. The referendum campaign featured a lot of xenophobia.
Once the referendum result appeared to legitimise xenophobia, it was given more leash. Xenophobic crimes increased.
Remember the "Enemies of the People".
Errr......I'm sorry, I see absolutely no evidence for that view. That's nothing more than assuming correlation is causation.
Correlation is evidence. It's not convincing in itself without supporting factors, but it doesn't have to be automatically excluded.
We have to face the core fact that reclaiming "sovereignty" is partly about controlling immigration.
Controlling immigration is partly about excluding the kinds of people we don't like. Some of us don't like Jews, Muslims, dark skinned people or foreigners generally. It doesn't need a carefully designed social science study to know this is true. Remember the turning point of the campaign?
When you exclude immigration from the Brexit "sovereignty" concept, there isn't much left apart from the kind of trade rules that the UK will have to abide by in some way whichever country we make a deal with.
Immigration is the core of Brexit, and Brexiteers ignore the fact that the EU offers as many opportunities for Brits to get out there and kick arse as it offers opportunities for the UK to staff up the NHS and floating agricultural labour force with enthusiastic, well-trained foreigners who make a big contribution to the economy.
Correlation is evidence. It's not convincing in itself without supporting factors, but it doesn't have to be automatically excluded.
That doesn't equate to automatically including it either. If you look up the statistics, homophobic crimes went up by a similar sort of percentage over a similar timeframe. This does not mean it was caused by Brexit, or the sentiments behind it. Not unless we're moving into 'only bad people voted for Brexit and those bad people felt they could commit more crimes afterwards' territory.
We have to face the core fact that reclaiming "sovereignty" is partly about controlling immigration.
And anti-semitism at the moment is virtually never about immigration. You don't exactly see boatloads of blokes in prayer scarves from Israel disgorging at Dover.
Controlling immigration is partly about excluding the kinds of people we don't like. Some of us don't like Jews, Muslims, dark skinned people or foreigners generally.
I find it interesting that you intrinsically equate controlling immigration with racism. That's a massive leap of reasoning in and of itself.
The variations here aren't statistically significant at the three sigma level. The median of the data is 533.5 incidents per year with a standard deviation of about 239.9. That means the number of incidents needs to be above about 1250 to be 99% confident that any year on year variation is not just due to statistical effects (i.e. anything below this value has a high chance of just being a 'natural' year by year variation)
I'm sure that reassures all the people who are very clearly suffering considerably more abuse on average than they did two decades ago.
I mean, using that sort of statistical analysis, even the rise of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany wouldn't be 'statistically significant'. Which says a lot about its utility in scenarios such as this.
How are you so sure? How do you know whether people weren't just 'suffering in silence'. There could be many factors to the increase overall, which as far as a quick look doesn't seem to have been studied in much detail. There is never any excuse to abuse anyone regardless of who they are or their background. However looking at the figures implies that we can't actually say that in any one year, based on the figures you provided, indicates that the year on year variation has not just been a statistical variation (and the same would go if in any year reports dropped to 150, that would not mean there is a decline). There appears to have been a jump in the figures around 2003/04 but whether this is due to actual increases, or just better reporting is not something we can say here.
"•Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
33% of people voting Wrexit did so over immigration fears.
And? Most Jews were already here and not visibly Jewish. They integrate and make themselves inconspicuous. Very deliberately. They don't walk around wearing yarmulkhs (unless they're seriously frum).
It was more support to the theory that support for Brexit was partly xenophobic and that there was a significant fraction that viewed people from foreign countries with suspicion. No single incident can be related to Wrexit or not (in the same way weather on any one day does not tell you much about climate change). However it does show that 17% of the people that voted did at least do it on the grounds that they don't like other people moving to this country.
Correlation is evidence. It's not convincing in itself without supporting factors, but it doesn't have to be automatically excluded.
That doesn't equate to automatically including it either. If you look up the statistics, homophobic crimes went up by a similar sort of percentage over a similar timeframe. This does not mean it was caused by Brexit, or the sentiments behind it.
We have to face the core fact that reclaiming "sovereignty" is partly about controlling immigration.
And anti-semitism at the moment is virtually never about immigration. You don't exactly see boatloads of blokes in prayer scarves from Israel disgorging at Dover.
Controlling immigration is partly about excluding the kinds of people we don't like. Some of us don't like Jews, Muslims, dark skinned people or foreigners generally.
I find it interesting that you intrinsically equate controlling immigration with racism. That's a massive leap of reasoning in and of itself.
...
Look at the poster and tell me it isn't connected to racial imagery.
To pull the sorts of factors that actually matter from the cst report:-
The longer term trend shows that CST has recorded a sustained high level of antisemitic incidents since July and August 2014. During
those two months, antisemitic reactions in the UK to that summer’s conflict in Israel and Gaza led to record levels of antisemitic incidents. 2014 saw a record annual total of 1,180 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST, 544 of which occurred in July and August of that year. This pattern of overseas conflicts leading to sharp increases in antisemitic incidents in the UK has been seen before, notably in 2009 and in 2006, and in those years the number of recorded incidents fell significantly once those conflicts were over.
Anti-semitism in the UK right now is not about Brexit, or immigration. If you honestly want to believe that? Go ahead, I'm done debating the point. There's sufficient studies out there saying otherwise. You can keep equating the two together if you want though.
I invite people to go back and read pages 35-36 of this thread and make their own conclusions as to whether arguing in favour of internment camps for Muslims based on anger is overly emotional and stupid or not, while remembering that the views of a few don't have to be representative of the majority.
Future War Cultist wrote: Are we back to the accusation that brexiteers are stupid and overly emotional again?
No, no, no one's saying that. But we're certainly thinking it loudly
Well I can't "think out loud" because it'll be censored. Just remember that some remainers were predicting world war three breaking out soon after a vote for Brexit, so let's just say that we're as bad as each other.
Yes, I get the political leaning of the Guardian Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
And yes people come and go for all sorts of reasons, it just saddens me that people who chose to come to Britain and worked to build a life here, are now leaving because they no longer feel welcome.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Guardian has been acting as Juncker's PR spokesperson since June 24th 2016.
It's sad to see these people go, but people were leaving the UK for all sorts of bad reasons even when we were in the EU.
Unfortunately, it happens...
That's because they see the harm that Wrexit will cause both in the short and long term to the UK and would prefer the country doesn't decide that throwing itself of a cliff because it has decided gravity doesn't exist doesn't actually mean we won't end up as a messy puddle at the bottom.
They also like to use data to support their arguments rather than the Daily Fail and Sunday Distress that would prefer to use nonsense and hyperbole emotional arguments to try and sway people. The evidence does show that there has been an upturn in the number of people leaving both from the EU and the UK and anecdotally a fair number of these are educated and professional people (such as scientists and the like). At the same time the migrants that support this country are arriving in less numbers placing ever increasing pressure on the NHS, social services and so on. We haven't even started trying to limit immigration yet and the people that we need are leaving already...how well is it going to go when restrictions start to be placed on such people?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: At any rate, anti-semitism is only a symptom of a much larger problem damaging this nation: the break down of law and order.
The first duty of any government is defence of the realm and then upholding the rule of law. The Tories have failed on this.
A few days ago, we learned that crime is on the increase across this great nation.
Today, on the BBC website, I learn that violence in prisons is on the up, and that prison guards were taken ill from drug fumes wafting through our prisons.
I also learned that prisoners were being let out early! Was that an honest mistake? Or prisoners tricking the authorities into early release?
I don't know anymore
Drug driving is on the up. Cybercrime. You name it. It's like Dark Age Britain.
Even if we catch and convict criminals, we can't even keep the fethers under lock and key any more!
You've heard me bang this drum many a time, but I ask my fellow dakka members this question:
what does UK stand for? United Kingdom or uncontrolled krimewave?
fething hell, you're like a broken record.
I think the crime wave you're obsessed with is at the back of a very long queue of things that most other people are worried about.
As I understand it from talking to fowks who know people working at Gleneagles etc, it's basically just one gang of jerks being jerks and nicking stuff.
Broadly speaking, insurance is covering the whole thing.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, I get the political leaning of the Guardian Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
And yes people come and go for all sorts of reasons, it just saddens me that people who chose to come to Britain and worked to build a life here, are now leaving because they no longer feel welcome.
Well this finally hit closer to me a few days ago. Of course it's anecdotal but an acquaintance of mine has just left his job in the UK (Lewes, to be precise) because of one bad experience too much. Over the last months he's been told to leave as many times as in the previous 8 years.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, I get the political leaning of the Guardian Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
And yes people come and go for all sorts of reasons, it just saddens me that people who chose to come to Britain and worked to build a life here, are now leaving because they no longer feel welcome.
Well this finally hit closer to me a few days ago. Of course it's anecdotal but an acquaintance of mine has just left his job in the UK (Lewes, to be precise) because of one bad experience too much. Over the last months he's been told to leave as many times as in the previous 8 years.
Did he even try to assimilate? If he just adopted a more bitter, venal, small-minded attitude, and carried a copy of The Mail .... and I can't be bothered. We suck, but sovereignties or something. Good luck to your departing pal, I hope he finds a more welcoming society somewhere, if shouldn't be much of a challenge.
It already is. Banks are leaving; scientists are leaving; European agencies are being divided up to go to other countries taking the high expertise jobs with them; aerospace companies are warning of reduced investment, airlines are moving part of their bases to the EU. There's lots going on, just not anything useful from our government who are about as useful as a sack of mouldy potatoes and completely rudderless.
In the meantime the Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are complaining that after complaining that the EU were too lax on security checks, that now that the EU has tightened these checks, they Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are now complaining when they went on holiday they had to wait longer because they weren't in the Schengen region. Someone needs to point out to them that they reap what they sow and they need to get used to it.
From what I read this morning, officials in Spain are deliberately dragging their heels processing people as part of action against being overworked. Taking 10 minutes per person will quickly back up a queue.
But the Mail doesn't seem all that contradictory to me, given that lack of controls have contributed to a situation now hard to manage. The extra checks being piled in now are specifically in response to the fact that schengen open movement policies have allowed people to move freely around Europe, the Paris attackers came through Greece and moved around unmonitored.
Having few systems in place, and then trying to play catch up and stretch your staff and resources much further than normally expected of them results in these sorts of problems.
Howard A Treesong wrote: From what I read this morning, officials in Spain are deliberately dragging their heels processing people as part of action against being overworked. Taking 10 minutes per person will quickly back up a queue.
There are two unrelated things happening at the moment. One is the EU-wide introduction of tighter controls on non-EU nationals because of a terror alert.
Also there's a partial strike on the security guards manning the X-ray machines asking for higher pay and more people on site.
It already is. Banks are leaving; scientists are leaving; European agencies are being divided up to go to other countries taking the high expertise jobs with them; aerospace companies are warning of reduced investment, airlines are moving part of their bases to the EU. There's lots going on, just not anything useful from our government who are about as useful as a sack of mouldy potatoes and completely rudderless.
In the meantime the Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are complaining that after complaining that the EU were too lax on security checks, that now that the EU has tightened these checks, they Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are now complaining when they went on holiday they had to wait longer because they weren't in the Schengen region. Someone needs to point out to them that they reap what they sow and they need to get used to it.
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
[/spoiler]
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
So in conclusion we are now saying that the best reason for Wrexit is to educate the public because, in general, they are too 'stupid' to recognise that current and previous governments have just blamed the EU for everything that is wrong with the country. Is that really a sound reason to Wrexit
On the other hand I fully expect current and future governments to continue to blame the EU after we have left because "they didn't let us get the best possible deal". On the above assumption of the populace being too 'stupid' to recognise more of the same bullgak I think it's unlikely that much will change at all...
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
So in conclusion we are now saying that the best reason for Wrexit is to educate the public because, in general, they are too 'stupid' to recognise that current and previous governments have just blamed the EU for everything that is wrong with the country. Is that really a sound reason to Wrexit
On the other hand I fully expect current and future governments to continue to blame the EU after we have left because "they didn't let us get the best possible deal". On the above assumption of the populace being too 'stupid' to recognise more of the same bullgak I think it's unlikely that much will change at all...
I don't feel the population is stupid. Rather we are all happy to abide by the status quo while being able to grumble a bit about those 'un-elected brussels bureaucrats'.
Since emotions play a rather big part in most peoples decision making processes I would imagine that it would seem a sound reason to leave for many.
And yes, Those same un-elected technocrats will be blamed for our political short comings for some time to come. All the more reason to call out our politicians when they do use such excuses.
I don't feel the population is stupid. Rather we are all happy to abide by the status quo while being able to grumble a bit about those 'un-elected brussels bureaucrats'.
Since emotions play a rather big part in most peoples decision making processes I would imagine that it would seem a sound reason to leave for many.
And yes, Those same un-elected technocrats will be blamed for our political short comings for some time to come. All the more reason to call out our politicians when they do use such excuses.
Except that might be exactly called 'stupidity' by the populace. If we are happy to carry on and just blame a distant organisation for our own failings then nothing will ever improve and only get worse as it lacks any foresight as to why things are going wrong which leads to further escalation of the problems that the populace face. That then gets blamed on an organisation again that allows us to ignore out responsibilities and the cycle repeats. That in essence is a type of stupidity.
In other news it appears that the EU are so confused about how ill prepared we are for Brexit they think it could all be part of a cunning plan.
As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Both remain AND Leave campaigners never ever expected a leave result. I'll stand by that assertion till the day I die.
The vote wont kill us, the preparedness of those tasked with negotiation and our subsequent future will.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Not helping what, exactly?
Your sense of excitement for being part of a very foolish decision, and how it should be about us breaking new ground and forging a new path? Sorry to piss on your chips, but the reality is that this is going to cost us, for quite some time, people will lose their jobs, and we will decline. That will happen.
How far we decline depends very much on the competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
There is no realistic scenario here where the UK comes out of this ahead of the game. Real, serious commentators and business leaders know this, Brexit is about damage limitation, not opening exciting new trade opportunities.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Not helping what, exactly?
Your sense of excitement for being part of a very foolish decision, and how it should be about us breaking new ground and forging a new path? Sorry to piss on your chips, but the reality is that this is going to cost us, for quite some time, people will lose their jobs, and we will decline. That will happen.
How far we decline depends very much on the competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
There is no realistic scenario here where the UK comes out of this ahead of the game. Real, serious commentators and business leaders know this, Brexit is about damage limitation, not opening exciting new trade opportunities.
In my lifetime, nearly 5 decades, people have been predicting the demise of Britain for quite some time. It's ironic that a Scottish nationalist like myself is leaping to the defence of Britain.
You and I are just ordinary voters, and I don't hold you personally responsible for the big guns on the Remain side, but honestly, they are the most feeble bunch I've ever encountered in a long time.
Rather than roll up their sleeves and plan ahead for the future, they're still fighting June 23rd, and they've spent a whole year trying to fight it in the courts, in the Commons, and in the newspapers, and they're still losing. None of this is your fault, but the bottom line is that Remain lost to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
Not exactly Napoleon and Churchill, is it?
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Both remain AND Leave campaigners never ever expected a leave result. I'll stand by that assertion till the day I die.
The vote wont kill us, the preparedness of those tasked with negotiation and our subsequent future will.
The minute I saw David Cameron leading the Remain camp, I knew we Leavers had a real chance of victory.
....the competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
I can give you the answer to this in a classic family fortune style.
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Like I say, credit where it's due.
You can live without your legs, yet people aren't chopping their legs off to spite the "experts" at the NHS saying it's a terrible idea.
The Tories propose festival to prove they are "hip" and "rad" and "down with the kids". Featuring up to 150 people, invite only and with lots of expensive alcohol, surely this is the way to really capture that youth vote!
The Tories propose festival to prove they are "hip" and "rad" and "down with the kids". Featuring up to 150 people, invite only and with lots of expensive alcohol, surely this is the way to really capture that youth vote!
The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.
How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...In my lifetime, nearly 5 decades, people have been predicting the demise of Britain for quite some time. It's ironic that a Scottish nationalist like myself is leaping to the defence of Britain.
You and I are just ordinary voters, and I don't hold you personally responsible for the big guns on the Remain side, but honestly, they are the most feeble bunch I've ever encountered in a long time.
Rather than roll up their sleeves and plan ahead for the future, they're still fighting June 23rd, and they've spent a whole year trying to fight it in the courts, in the Commons, and in the newspapers, and they're still losing. None of this is your fault, but the bottom line is that Remain lost to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
Not exactly Napoleon and Churchill, is it?
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Like I say, credit where it's due....
I've got to challenge a couple of assertions here. The loose association of "Remain" doesn't exist anymore, there are only individuals now acting on their own beliefs. Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.
The EU has not convinced people that the EU and Europe are the same thing, the only people who believe that are the lower end of the intellectual spectrum, usually the most anti-Europe/ EU. You know, the ones who actually believe that EU rules are strangling British business, but struggle to name what red tape is responsible for doing that strangling. They also regularly confuse both Europe and the EU in their ill-informed rants, especially if the thing that infuriates them is actually down to the British Government. Everyone else is perfectly aware that Europe and the EU are in fact distinct and separate entities, one is a continent, and the other is a political organisation for a start.
I agree that the spread of neo-liberal ideas is insidious, however it has led to a direct increase, in the main, for those nations who've adopted it's tenets. It needs careful control, and appropriate intervention in order to avoid the worst excess of capitalism, but this is what the EU encourages.
Finally, survival outside of the EU has not been contested. You're deliberately conflating people's reasonable, and as it turns out mostly accurate, concerns that leaving the EU will lead to a downturn and a decrease in our wealth and status, with some sort of apocalypse. Some commentators are using extreme language, about how far this will go, but no serious, or credible, commentator has suggested that Britain won't survive, just that we'll be much poorer as a result of following this path.
As an aside, I have to say that the supporters of Leave, by contrast, have done a spectacularly poor job of convincing anyone, except their own side, that this is a good thing, and that actually we are going to be OK, or even thrive. That should be their focus and concern, convincing people like me and others who disagreed with this whole debacle of the positives, and that it's going to be fine.
People constantly whinge about others "talking the UK down", where then is there counter? Where are the people "talking the UK up"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, it looks like the State Pension is being lined up for the chopping block. Not for the current generation of pensioners, obviously. The baby boomers will sleep soundly knowing their incessant teat suckling of the state will continue uninterrupted.
It will be left to those, just starting out or in the first 10 years of their working lives to carry the can for this. I expect a much later date for eligibility, much closer to actual fragility, increase in contributions, and means testing. That work pension you'll pay into will mean your final income once you retire will, be much slimmer than you expected.
It's depressingly inevitable. Triple lock is costing us fortune, and as we saw in the GE, any attempt to adjust this is electoral suicide.
The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.
How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k
This has been going on for some time. However this smaller number of people also generated vastly more donations for the Tories in the last election. The vast majority of Tory members are either very wealthy or old. Tory membership is declining because they are failing to attract new members in any significant numbers and more of their members are passing away each year. Hence the Tories are ever more reliant on the rich (and hence it is no surprise that their policies favour the few, rather than the populace as a whole). That a lot of people still vote for them implies Labour still have to fight the "they aren't fiscally responsible" mantra whereas in reality both the main parties are likely to be equally poor. However in the medium to long term Tories may have a problem. With an ever dwindling supporter base it means that the overall quality of their candidates will reduce statistically until they are likely to get to a point where they are putting relative incompetents in charge (I can suggest that having clowns like Gove, Boris, Davis and May is just the start) as the pool of 'good' MPs dwindles. This (hopefully) will eventually making such a mess of the country that even the most deluded of Tory voters will realise that they are just a few idiot rich toffs that use Government as some form of game that they are continuing from schooling days.
I've got to challenge a couple of assertions here. The loose association of "Remain" doesn't exist anymore, there are only individuals now acting on their own beliefs. Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.
I think there is no figure head for remain anymore for people to rally around. There is still a grassroots support for remaining (and polls suggest this is growing) but there is no group really taking the government to task over the real impacts (and Labour don't appear to know what they want). I think there is still a large pressure from Leavers because if we go down another referendum that was stated as binding then the result is likely to be different (the question would be by how much and whether it would be enough not just to show the country is still divided). Additionally the youth vote is now more politically engaged and could easily swing the vote. I think this is why Leavers still press the case, they know they've basically ended up with a "smash and grab" raid on the crown jewels and are desperately trying to force things through until it is too late regardless of the consequences in the long term.
I agree that the spread of neo-liberal ideas is insidious, however it has led to a direct increase, in the main, for those nations who've adopted it's tenets. It needs careful control, and appropriate intervention in order to avoid the worst excess of capitalism, but this is what the EU encourages.
However it regularly gets confused with social liberalism (for example equal rights regardless of who you decide to be). The Tories in some ways are the poster child for neo-liberalism and yet the EU is the one blamed for its growth. On the other hand the EU is more supportive of social liberalism and the Tories less so. When people argue that the EU have successfully undertaken a successful propaganda trick then the reality is something different. The reality is more that the certain elements of the wealthy and the Tories have managed to use propaganda to blame the EU for our problems and peoples increasing frustration with the UKs greater neo-liberalist approach. In the end leaving will benefit these people at the expense of the populace at large who will see the 'benefits' of social liberalism in decline.
The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.
How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k
I seem to remember some sketch, it may be a spitting image sketch from way back when or something when a member of the public decked out in tory blue is asked who they voted for they announce 'Labour!'
I think the tories are 'universally loathed' in public, in private......
For membership, Labour has seen a dramatic uptick, but again, how many are active participants, how many have shown support on the basis of the past election cycle, how many will let their memberships lapse?
I think Tory party membership is fairly constant but I would imagine that Labours membership peak and trough with regularity.
Yeah, people might not be so keen to admit to being a Tory since it's likely to get you spat at (or worse) by a certain section of society. You can also say that they have a tiny membership that continues to dwindle, yet they keep coming out on top in general elections. That's the silent majority. Labour might have a bigger membership but I think that's down to two factors; all the middle class Riot Chic types who would have been SWP in the past flocking to Jermony Corbyn in mass, and all the 'fake' members who took advantage of Ed Millibands changes to buy their way in to make sure Corbyn won the leadership contest. A strategy which almost back fired badly there last election.
I doubt any of the other Labour challengers would have done better than Corbyn. People are fed up of them, they're not inspirational.
While I don't agree with all Corbyn says, he's one of the few senior MPs with a sense of vision, he has strong radical ideas for the future and you know what he wants. I feel he wants to serve the UK and a lot of younger voters are enthused by it.
So many of the alternatives in government are craven and self serving, thinking of furthering their career, they bend whichever way the wind blows. There's no vision for Europe or the UK, no sense they have principles or some strong ideological plan for society. That's why they're such a contradictory mess at the moment. Theresa May and others in government just come up with stuff with no conception of how the public will react, and U turn when they screw up. Boris is among the worst, a person whose politics shift constantly but covers it with bluster and stunts.
Many of the challengers to Corbyn are wishy washy too, there's no impression they have a strong vision for the future, just a few ideas to alter a bit of the stuff set in place by the Tories. With Corbyn, you're offered a meaningful alternative to current government.
I don't think there is a "silent" majority, there's certainly a lot of gobshites on social media who are unafraid to let you know exactly what they think, and no one I know has any problem with letting you know they're a Tory, or until recently, UKIP.
I think it more likely there's a large pool of centrist voters who bend with the wind, and vote for whatever sounds best at the time. They're not really the types to pin their flag to any particular mast.
Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.
@r_squared
Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.
It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.
Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.
It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.
Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah, people might not be so keen to admit to being a Tory since it's likely to get you spat at (or worse) by a certain section of society. You can also say that they have a tiny membership that continues to dwindle, yet they keep coming out on top in general elections. That's the silent majority. Labour might have a bigger membership but I think that's down to two factors; all the middle class Riot Chic types who would have been SWP in the past flocking to Jermony Corbyn in mass, and all the 'fake' members who took advantage of Ed Millibands changes to buy their way in to make sure Corbyn won the leadership contest. A strategy which almost back fired badly there last election.
There's a difference between those that vote Tory and those that actively engage as a Tory member. Tory membership continues to decline over time from a very high levels in the 60s and 70s.
It's difficult to say whether current upsurge in labour figures is long term. However even before this Labour's figures were holding a lot steadier than the Tories were.
As for voting intentions that is a different issue. By voting any party it does not mean that you are a supporter (for example I voted Labour this year not because I support them, but more that they were the best chance in the area to stop Empress May - I view myself more akin to Greens and LDs). This is likely to apply for other people to, one of my brothers voted in what he believed would make them better off and pay less taxes. That they also complain about the degradation of the NHS, social care and [insert any other Tory disaster] doesn't come across their threshold of linking the fact that voting for their own taxes to be as low as possible equates to the latter issues. In effect then the Tories have an inherent advantage as they benefit from the "what's in it for me", whereas Labour is at a disadvantage as they are generally seen as the party that will take more money off middle England to support our social system. I can surmise then this is probably why people are 'shy' about admitting they vote Tory - they know they are voting selfishly and what is best for them even though they are fully aware of the likely consequences of doing so (and prefer not to have to admit in the open).
Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.
It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.
Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.
No it wasn't and this is the sort of nonsense is spouted to try and cow people into thinking that any argument against leaving is "against the democratic process". The democratic process is a live and continuing system, not a once voted means always is...(and should not be reviewed). Gina Miller brought a legal challenge against a government hell bent on pursuing a type of Wrexit that avoided any type of scrutiny from the people elected to undertake this on our behalf. We have a justice system that is there to take the government to account and to ensure they act legally. You should perhaps be in fact thanking her rather than spouting nonsense; if they really wanted to cause chaos then they should have just let May get on with it and then a day before Wrexit start the court case to say it was enacted illegally. On the assumption the courts would have ruled the same way (no reason to think they wouldn't) then the process would have been deemed illegal, the issue of A50 would have had to be withdrawn and chaos would ensue. Just because someone does something that *you* personally disagree with is not a justifiable reason to argue that they are just trying to disrupt democracy. I could easily say you are disrupting democracy by opposing the legal challenge - that you prefer a dictatorial head of government preventing parliament, as the democratically elected representation of the country, to have any say on how Wrexit occurs? I could easily argue that your slating of Gina Miller (and supporters) is in fact just your own smokescreen of protecting democracy whereas in reality you just want to ram home your version of Wrexit? Perhaps I would suggest then that your preferred style of government is a dictatorship?
That she thinks leaving the EU is one of the greatest bone headed decisions the country has ever done (and that's saying something given recent history), which is something I agree with, does not mean she was not entitled to challenge the government process.
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
Alternative I could argue that we are in danger of a militant minority of Leavers who are hell bent on ensuring a type of Wrexit that has never been discussed, never been voted on and when all comes down to it was advertised as non-binding (which may have changed the result if many people just voted against the establishment and actually didn't think it would really change things). Perhaps Leavers are just trying to brainwash people that those continuing the debate should be vilified to avoid scrutiny of their motives?
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?
The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?
The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?
That you can't really reverse a non-binding referendum? Because of the whole non-binding thing meaning that there is nothing legal in it to reverse?
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?
The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?
That you can't really reverse a non-binding referendum? Because of the whole non-binding thing meaning that there is nothing legal in it to reverse?
A number of high profile Remain supporters in the media and in politics have sought to invalidate or de-legitimize last year's referendum result by saying that it was non-binding, which it was. I'm merely highlighting the point that by their logic, we should ignore the 1975 referendum result as well, because that too was non-binding.
Furthermore, all this talk of non-binding is hogwash if you think about it. Parliament passed a bill allowing a referendum to go ahead by 6-1 in favour. The word advisary was thrown around?
Does Parliament really need to pass a bill to advise itself? Seriously? Who was it supposed to advise?
That's like saying you'll have a vote on having a vote!
Parliament passed the referendum bill in good faith. The British public voted in good faith on June 23rd 2016.
I have zero time for anybody trying to reverse the referendum. Had the nation voted to Remain, I would have accepted the result 100% and criticsed anybody on the leave side who tried to reverse it.
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?
The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?
My point is that the entire point of a non-binding referendum is to see whether or not something has sufficient popular support to do. When the result is marginally to one side's favour it's absolutely mental to draw the conclusion that you should just bulldoze on with sweeping societal changes. There's a mandate to think about how to make Brexit happen, but the referendum didn't actually define what "leaving the European Union" meant. The 1973 referendum was a 63/37 split, which isn't close enough that the weather could swing the result.
Look at it this way: What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of a change to the constitution. In the US you'd have to jump through a bunch of hoops to ratify a change to the Constitution, in Sweden you'd have to get it through parliament, have a parliamentary election and then have it pass the new parliament too, and in most other stable democracies have some sort of check on sweeping constitutional changes. The UK, of course, doesn't even have a constitution, but sweeping changes of this kind without any sort of check is a much, MUCH bigger threat to democracy than the people you're raging against.
I'm not attacking you, but your point about Parliament not having its say is also another smokescreen.
Those who defend parliamentry sovereignty turn a blind eye to the fact that when it came to EU oversight commitees, working groups etc etc
then hardly any of our MPs bothered to turn up to them.
No it isn't. We live in a parliamentary democracy. If our MPs aren't doing the task we allocate to them then we, as the voters, are the ones for deciding that MP is not suitable. However they are still there to represent the populace. You can't have a one off direct democracy to force through a regime change with minimal input (and a statements to the public that are effectively a lie - 350m to the NHS, WWIII etc).
Not every MP needs to turn up to every debate, every committee and so on. The MPs are tasked with certain work elements, not all of them. If you expected every MP to turn up to every sub-committee then nothing would get done simply because they'd be stuck in every debate going. Instead they are allocated to certain areas (say public health) and they are expected to go to those committees and working groups (but not the ones on the environment). That's why you have commons with few people in at times. Those that need to be there are, those that have other tasks are doing just that. If you work in a business you don't go to every meeting, just the ones you need to attend; otherwise your whole working day would be in meetings and you'd never get anything done.
Look at it this way: What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of a change to the constitution. In the US you'd have to jump through a bunch of hoops to ratify a change to the Constitution, in Sweden you'd have to get it through parliament, have a parliamentary election and then have it pass the new parliament too, and in most other stable democracies have some sort of check on sweeping constitutional changes. The UK, of course, doesn't even have a constitution, but sweeping changes of this kind without any sort of check is a much, MUCH bigger threat to democracy than the people you're raging against.
Agreed - just look at Turkey for example. In the end Wrexit is a right wing coup by parts of the Tory party. Cameron thought he could put the issue to bed, instead he's split the country so badly its likely to take generations to repair.
A number of high profile Remain supporters in the media and in politics have sought to invalidate or de-legitimize last year's referendum result by saying that it was non-binding, which it was. I'm merely highlighting the point that by their logic, we should ignore the 1975 referendum result as well, because that too was non-binding.
Furthermore, all this talk of non-binding is hogwash if you think about it. Parliament passed a bill allowing a referendum to go ahead by 6-1 in favour. The word advisary was thrown around?
Does Parliament really need to pass a bill to advise itself? Seriously? Who was it supposed to advise?
That's like saying you'll have a vote on having a vote!
Parliament passed the referendum bill in good faith. The British public voted in good faith on June 23rd 2016.
I have zero time for anybody trying to reverse the referendum. Had the nation voted to Remain, I would have accepted the result 100% and criticsed anybody on the leave side who tried to reverse it.
You host an advisory referendum to gauge public support before you start the actual workings of passing parliamentary law in motion. As we have all seen, leaving the EU is going to be a very complicated mess, should the MPs have instead started to get things ready and devote resources to it before finding out whether it was something which the UK populace actually wanted? If it turned out to be something that the population was against then it would just result in a large waste of money and time.
It is not hogwash, you're just creating strawman arguments to try and paint it so as part of your continued ramblings about how the UK is stuck in a spiraling crime wave with no massive vision for the future and undermined by people who launch successful court challenges against executive overreach.
A Town Called Malus wrote: [your continued ramblings about how the UK is stuck in a spiraling crime wave with no massive vision for the future and undermined by people who launch successful court challenges against executive overreach.
Welcome to the United States of Great Britain. At least in America they just shoot you instead of spraying acid in your face.
Whirlwind wrote: Alternative I could argue that we are in danger of a militant minority of Leavers who are hell bent on ensuring a type of Wrexit that has never been discussed, never been voted on and when all comes down to it was advertised as non-binding
Especially when you review most of the arguments from the Leave side they all seem to point to a soft Brexit (glossing over what it would mean regarding payments, contributions and EU overseeing UK institutions).
Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.
EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.
The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation:
No wonder people are confused and angry about the EU being "unfair" on poor Britain. They only voted to get all the perks while at the same time removing themselves from the evil eurocrats.
The discussion on the kind of Brexit people wanted to started only after the vote, and after waking up to the reality of what Brexit really meant (formerly known as project fear)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.
It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.
Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.
It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.
Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.
Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.
We've been through this before, but whether Gina Miller wanted to stop Brexit or not is irrelevant, the challenge was necessary and important - the government were about to set a precedent for removing citizens rights without any parliamentary scrutiny. Anyone shouting about sovereignty should have been utterly appalled at the prospect.
It didn't backfire, her case succeded. I asked you to spell out exactly how it backfired when you said you were 'glad that it backfired' a while back. I don't think you ever answered. So you could clarify how it backfired now, if you fancy? Other than getting her reems of racist abuse and the scorn of the Mail, how does successfully taking the givernment to court and forcing them to properly go through parliament constitute backfiring?
Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.
It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.
Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.
It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.
I'm sure delaying A50 was a part of it, but I still think it's hard to claim it had nothing to do with democracy - and it did defend democracy - everything has to be ratified by parliament.
Yes she was a Remainer, but do you imagine any Brexiteers would have brought the challenge to get the required government checks and bounds involved?
A lot of people have posted well argued points to my earlier comments. I won't answer them all, and even though I obviously disagree with the Remain position, you still have my respect for sticking to your guns.
As a general response to everybody, I will say two things:
1. Before the June 23rd vote, everybody knew the rules of the game. From the Prime Minister to MPs, business leaders to the man in the street. We knew what we were doing and what we signed up to. We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.
I'm obviously a stranger to people here, some random internet guy, and you only have my word for this, but despite my loathing of all things EU, I would have fought tooth and nail to uphold the referendum result had it went Remain's way.
2. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
Twice the British public have been asked, and twice they have endorsed the decision to leave the EU.
That's why I get mad at people who try and de-legitimize our withdrawal from the EU.
If people want to say it will be a disaster, then fine - that's their God given right, but I have no time for people trying to keep us in the EU at any cost
And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.
Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.
I disagree here. We voted (on both sides) based on some terrible campaigning and outright lies. I'm not sure the vast majority respected the result either, but a small majority seem to want everyone else to just "get over it you lost".
I'd also disagree that the GE vote had a significant amount to do with Brexit - the only 2 serious parties were on the Leave side (did anyone thing we'd get a Lib Dem win?) and there were many other issues at play.
The point of non-binding being mentioned is that many of us are stunned anyone can regard a 51.9% majority as enough to steamroll everything. It's enough for a parliamentary review/investigation certainly, but that's it.
As for parliamentary scrutiny - everyone on both sides should want the job done correctly, without boundless power grabs. That some seem to ignore that because they are currently getting their way is worrying. I don't want us to leave, I think it's a total own goal. But I know we are leaving, so I'd rather we did it properly and tried to maintain our sovereignty rather that giving May literal Carte Blanche to do what she wants; especially since she's got a bad track record in that regard already.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.
Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.
Wasn't about the EU?
Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.
Tim Farron more or less said that if you cut him open, he'd bleed blue and yellow. The Lib Dems were banging on about the EU and another referendum from Day 1 of the campaign.
Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.
I disagree here. We voted (on both sides) based on some terrible campaigning and outright lies. I'm not sure the vast majority respected the result either, but a small majority seem to want everyone else to just "get over it you lost".
I'd also disagree that the GE vote had a significant amount to do with Brexit - the only 2 serious parties were on the Leave side (did anyone thing we'd get a Lib Dem win?) and there were many other issues at play.
The point of non-binding being mentioned is that many of us are stunned anyone can regard a 51.9% majority as enough to steamroll everything. It's enough for a parliamentary review/investigation certainly, but that's it.
As for parliamentary scrutiny - everyone on both sides should want the job done correctly, without boundless power grabs. That some seem to ignore that because they are currently getting their way is worrying. I don't want us to leave, I think it's a total own goal. But I know we are leaving, so I'd rather we did it properly and tried to maintain our sovereignty rather that giving May literal Carte Blanche to do what she wants; especially since she's got a bad track record in that regard already.
Every political campaign in human history has had some sort of lying in it. As for the Lib Dems, if they're a feeble, wishy-washy bunch who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, then that's their fault and not the British public's.
Like you, I also want the job done properly, but it's clear to me that there is a hard core Remain minority in the Commons who are throwing up any roadblock they can, in the hope we'll come to our 'senses.'
I do not use this term lightly, but IMO, some of them seem to be acting like an EU 5th column.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.
Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.
Wasn't about the EU?
Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.
Tim Farron more or less said that if you cut him open, he'd bleed blue and yellow. The Lib Dems were banging on about the EU and another referendum from Day 1 of the campaign.
Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.
The EU was front and centre of the last GE
Nobody actually believed that May called the election to get a strong hand for negotiations. You certainly didn't at the time she called it.
Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.
Which she lost (the majority, not the election). That's not screaming support for Brexit. Of course, she held the election because her sponsors thought it'd be an easy win from Labour.
Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.
And SNP got a vast majority in Scotland. But that's not enough.
Every political campaign in human history has had some sort of lying in it.
Oh definitely. But on the scale of the Brexit campaign? The migrant signs, maps highlighting Syria, claims that Turkey was going to let them all in, that £350m a week for the NHS?
Like you, I also want the job done properly, but it's clear to me that there is a hard core Remain minority in the Commons who are throwing up any roadblock they can, in the hope we'll come to our 'senses.'
So why do you object to people ensuring that the job is done properly, because they are one of that 48.1% minority? Aren't you glad that Brexit requires parliamentary approval now? Or are you viewing that as an unnecessary delay in leaving?
Brexit won. So rather than the remainers trying to stop it from happening, they should embrace it and make sure that we get the best deal from it.
That's exactly the problem. Now that Brexit "won", all counter arguments are unwelcome.
Why should we embrace it and make sure we get the best deal? "Brexit" and "best deal" are completely at odds with each other; any "good deal" is "as far away from Brexit as possible".
Normally, if we made a bad decision, it's still valid to discuss it and potentially undo it. Just because Brexit "won", doesn't mean the other half of us need to suddenly start thinking it's a good idea.
Half of us thought it was a good idea, why aren't that trying to make it work?
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining. If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
They got zero.
I don't deny that the extremists of both sides of the argument were run out of town in the last election, but the general consensus from the British public is that Brexit is happening.
I'm not blaming anybody on dakka, but it frustrates me to see people in the media bang on about staying in the EU, when they've had 12 months to get their vision across for Britain's future.
There is a Left-wing, post-Brexit future for Britain if people put across a credible plan for it. Brexit doesn't have to be a right-wing future.
Remain input, in a constructive way, is always welcome in my book, but we have too much sniping from the sidelines.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining.
If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
You're forgetting that the British people were asked in a referendum about voting reform. Their decision was to send it packing.
Brexit won. So rather than the remainers trying to stop it from happening, they should embrace it and make sure that we get the best deal from it.
That's exactly the problem. Now that Brexit "won", all counter arguments are unwelcome.
Why should we embrace it and make sure we get the best deal? "Brexit" and "best deal" are completely at odds with each other; any "good deal" is "as far away from Brexit as possible".
Normally, if we made a bad decision, it's still valid to discuss it and potentially undo it. Just because Brexit "won", doesn't mean the other half of us need to suddenly start thinking it's a good idea.
Half of us thought it was a good idea, why aren't that trying to make it work?
In my book there's nothing wrong with input from the 48%
But there's a big difference between constructive criticism and blatant attempt to keep us in the EU by the back door.
If you don't want to be kept in the EU by the back door, then you're likely to disregard almost everything coming from Remain.
It's like asking us for advice on the best way to shoot yourself in the foot. "don't" obviously not being a suitable answer. Using a BB gun looks a lot like "don't" by the back door.
I'd also disagree that we decided to send the EU packing. We don't know what we decided (question was too vague) and we also didn't get any statistically significant decision. But we've wasted dozens of pages on that already.
Herzlos wrote: If you don't want to be kept in the EU by the back door, then you're likely to disregard almost everything coming from Remain.
It's like asking us for advice on the best way to shoot yourself in the foot. "don't" obviously not being a suitable answer. Using a BB gun looks a lot like "don't" by the back door.
I'd also disagree that we decided to send the EU packing. We don't know what we decided (question was too vague) and we also didn't get any statistically significant decision. But we've wasted dozens of pages on that already.
To be fair to the EU, and I don't like being fair to the EU, they have been pretty consistent on the 4 freedoms.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
A clean break is probably best for all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This video pretty much sums up the public mood to immigration these days:
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
The political cost and the economic cost are miles apart from each other.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement.
No, we don't. That particular argument is rooted firmly in the Leave side and came about during the referendum as part of the "have cake and eat it, too" narrative.
What people still arguing for remaining in the single market think is that membership of the single market is extremely important for the UK economy and worth the "price" of freedom of movement.
The political cost and the economic cost are miles apart from each other.
IMO, we can only have one, not both.
Economy or immigration - it's as simple as that.
Immigration is irrevocably tied to the economy. Our economy relies on immigration.
All that will happen if we leave the single market is loss of trade income whilst still having to take in immigrants to fuel our now weaker economy.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
I think you've got that backwards - all of the Leavers seem to think we can have the single market access without the movement (or membership fees), and all the Remainers are pointing out that that's just not going to happen. The Remainer view (in as much as there is one) is that we need single market access much more than we need to get rid of freedom of movement, because...
Immigration is holding up the economy. We need them to bring in money and offset the aging population leaving the workforce.
Even the Leave side seem to have accepted in the most part that we still need immigration but just want to control it somehow.
If we don't get a good trade deal (ideally tariff and customs free), we're screwed. If we can't get immigrants in, we're screwed.
There's already proposals for 2-year work VISA for (IIRC) under 30's, to encourage exactly what everyone claims the problem with migrants is (people coming here temporarily, taking a job, saving all their money and taking it home, rather than investing it back in the economy). If they've only got 2 year VISAs there's no point buying anything they can't take home with them in 24 months (house, nice furniture, nice car, etc), minimal point getting to know the locals or culture or language. Even if they can renew, they're always going to be wary about having to leave again.
What we actually want is to bring over talented young people, and turn them British, so that they join the economy properly and contribute (economically and culturally).
There's nothing wrong with short term immigrants. For example, the soft fruit part of the UK's agricultural sector is fairly dependent on mobile European labour for seasonal planting and picking. UK agriculture is already suffering recruitment problems because the weakness of the GBP makes working here less attractive to the eastern European mobile workforce. This is before the visa related problems that will occur after Brexit.
As for the idea that these people take money out of the country, that's not possible because they are paid in GBP and can only spend that on British stuff or else buying a foreign currency. The UK being (at the moment, though this is likely to change after Brexit) one of the world's leading providers of foreign exchange services, even this is to our benefit. The City of London is particularly strong in the Euro trade, for now.
It's yet another example of the obvious possible multiple disadvantages of Leave, where there isn't anything substantial to offset it if things really do go down the tubes.
Herzlos, you're forgetting that robots and automation is on the way.
An old population? Cheap labour for industry?
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
IMO, Remain seems to think we can get single market access without freedom of movement. Never going to happen, and any continuation of freedom of movement is likely to result in Farage coming out of retirement.
I think you've got that backwards - all of the Leavers seem to think we can have the single market access without the movement (or membership fees), and all the Remainers are pointing out that that's just not going to happen. The Remainer view (in as much as there is one) is that we need single market access much more than we need to get rid of freedom of movement, because...
I went over some of the Leave camp claims for seamless and easy single market access in case Leave won. Meanwhile this is what the official remain campaign was saying:
The original leaflet even bolded the relevant parts for this discussion.
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
Yesterdays problems are still todays problems if you didn't fix them yesterday.
Future War Cultist wrote: You'll need to look at our power supply first. I doubt it could handle a massive increase in use of electrical vehicles in its current state.
But then we can't build new power plants without expertise from other countries because we let our industries wither away as the power distribution and generation was privatised.
. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.
They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+
UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?
Also, the Lib Dems got 7.4% of the total vote but only got 1.8% of the seats. Using number of seats as opposed to % vote share to support the idea that the UK population is anti-remain is not a very good measure of the actual numbers of people who voted for the party which supported remaining.
If the results were proportionate then the LDs would have got 48 seats, a not insignificant chunk of Parliament.
The surveys also show that the people supporting remain voted in the majority for Labour and the Leave for Conservative. This wasn't because they suddenly switched to supporting Leave but more that they wanted to curb May's and the Tories excesses. I did this. I am firmly in the Remain camp but I voted Labour as they had the best chance of removing the incumbent Tory. I would in a PR system vote for LD or Greens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, as though I'm the only person here with a bit common sense, and dare I say, vision
Everybody is banging on about electric cars being the future. Some people are banging on about lack of charging points in the UK.
Am I the only person here to see the common sense solution that is needed?
Get bloody building!
Replace our current petrol stations with the new tech that's needed, and build a network of charging points from Land's End to John O'Groats.
That is the kind of infastructure building that will reboot the UK's economy
Really how? How is replacing one set of cars with another going to reboot the economy?
Also the we are leaving the organisation need to do this is also being left, Euratom. Here's a insight into the impacts.
It's more likely that we will have a booming industry in horses and carts....
It's all very well saying we push forward to a new era, but that's just the same as any other slogan. All words and no substance. This isn't the steam age when we can operate in isolation by inventing relatively simple industries. Those that want to do this and close doors are likely going to be rapidly left behind not be at the forefront of anything.
Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
Did you ever watch that BBC4 documentary about Concorde? Yeah, the French were there, but pre-EU, you had people inventing one of the greatest all time inventions of aviation.
And they did it with slide rules and pen and paper.
That's the calibre of men and women this country breeds.
Sure, they'll be problems and detail, but if we roll up our sleeves and get stuck in, then history shows we can overcome nearly anything.
I refuse to believe that the British people are incapable of building a better future for this great nation.
The naysayers may nay, but history shall prove me right.
Britain doesn't have a monopoly on inventions anymore. There are universities and research labs round the world making advances every day. We've largely moved on from rich men in sheds being able to invent something using domestic tools. The world has moved on a lot since Darwin, Brunel and Babbage.
I suspect the UK bias in inventing is overstated as well. There's lots of major inventions or inventors that weren't British and have may been more important to civilisation. Calculus & numeracy came from Greece / Middle East, Periodic is Russian. Edison & Tesla were American, Einstein was German. Marie Curie was Polish. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Archimedes, and so on.
I'm not saying that the UK is a barren wasteground when it comes to inventions, but the rest of the world has caught up and I think a lot of Brexiteers overestimate our position on the world stage.
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
These huge fleets of robots are still going to need maintenance and people will resist until they have no option.
Anyway, we're still a long way away from much more automation - a lot of the easy stuff has been done and the hard stuff isn't quite solvable yet.
We're just entering a new industrial revolution, but that's largely based in and around factories as well.
We can steal a march on the EU by investing in the future, and plan ahead for the social problems of people having no jobs e.g citizens' income.
But will we? One of the Scandinavian countries is already trialing universal basic income. What are we doing?
You're talking about yesterday's problems. I'm talking about tomorrow's opportunities.
Yesterdays problems are still going to be affecting us for decades, so we really need to sort them. Tomorrow will come with a whole new set of problems.
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
These huge fleets of robots are still going to need maintenance and people will resist until they have no option.
Anyway, we're still a long way away from much more automation - a lot of the easy stuff has been done and the hard stuff isn't quite solvable yet.
We're just entering a new industrial revolution, but that's largely based in and around factories as well.
Actually we are on the cusp of a revolution in automation. AI and automation of decision making is just about to make a lot of people redundant. Over the next 20 years we can expect to see a lot of clerical, admin and service delivery roles (including things like driving) disappear. Vocational services jobs like plumbers and hairdressers will remain, but the march towards more automation is going to speed up as companies realise the potential and start investing.
Important yes, world changing, yes. Most significant? No.
They aren't radiation, electricity, or most of the fundamental understandings that lead us there.
I'm not saying we don't invent anything, but the world doesn't rely on us anymore.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
I've been wondering what's going on lately but I think I get it now; you've decided to become a full time parody account.
Parody?
From the top of my head, 6 of the most famous inventions in human history came from Britain:
1. TV
2.RADAR
3.The Industrial Revolution (which changed the world forever)
4. Association football (soccer) the world's most popular sport.
5. The telephone
6. and finally, the world wide web...
Is there a man or woman on dakkadakka, who will step forward, and argue, with a straight face, that none of these inventions changed human history?
They wouldn't dare, because they'd be laughed out of town.
But then lots of others changed the face of history too. Just picking and choosing a random selection of what we did in the past does in no way imply that the future we will be anywhere near the forefront of inventions. Most these days are not designed by tinkerers in the backyard but from multinational organisations working towards a common goal. You have a strange perception about how things are invented for the most part these days.
You last example is a case in point. It was first thought up by an English scientist, whilst working in Switzerland, for CERN managed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research...This is not just one persons invention.
The boom in automation concerns me, I know what parts of the country look like when your industry is wound up, it destroys livlihoods and communities, and nothing has replaced them. Unemployment resulting from automation will be a big problem, and we have a growing population. My job will be among the last to be automated, if ever, many are in danger of disappearing in the next 20 years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, you're forgetting that this nation invented most inventions and most of the modern world.
I've been wondering what's going on lately but I think I get it now; you've decided to become a full time parody account.
Parody?
From the top of my head, 6 of the most famous inventions in human history came from Britain:
1. TV
2.RADAR
3.The Industrial Revolution (which changed the world forever)
4. Association football (soccer) the world's most popular sport.
5. The telephone
6. and finally, the world wide web...
Is there a man or woman on dakkadakka, who will step forward, and argue, with a straight face, that none of these inventions changed human history?
They wouldn't dare, because they'd be laughed out of town.
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
Herzlos wrote: There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
1.
2.
3. Seriously??? I suppose the French revolution was a minor scuffle.
4. China? Utter hogwash. Did the Chinese codify the rules of soccer? Host the world's first international football game, and create the first modern football leagues?
Look, the industrial revolution isn't a specific invention. It's a transitional time period. But it started in the U.K., and it permanently changed the world. So DINLT has a point, even if he didn't express it correct exactly.
EDIT: Not having a go at you DINLT. I'm actually trying to back you up.
1. Invented in multiple places and depend on what you count as "inventing TV". The first commercial TV station was in the USA, the first practical demonstration that something like TV was possible was in Paris, and Baird's demonstrations were in the UK.
2. Hertz showed that radio waves could be reflected from solid objects in the lave 19th century. A German inventor got both a German and British patent for a working radar in 1904.
3. The Industrial Revolution is not an invention. Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
4. China had you beat mate.
5. Bell was American, and even then who actually invented the telephone first might as well be flamebait at this point considering how hotly contested it is.
6. ARPANET says hi.
In conclusion, you got one out of six right, and that's the one that isn't actually an invention. So yes, parody.
1.
2.
3. Seriously??? I suppose the French revolution was a minor scuffle.
4. China? Utter hogwash. Did the Chinese codify the rules of soccer? Host the world's first international football game, and create the first modern football leagues?
5. You contest, we've confirmed.
6. I surrender!
I need to lie down.
So you concede that you were wrong then, seeing as you're not even trying to defend your statements?
Will soon be a distant memory, consigned to the history books like the musket, fax machines, and black and white TV, as robots take on more and more work.
There are only so many jobs robots will be able to do for practical / physiological reasons, and that could still take a while. Self driving taxi fleets will be a thing in maybe 30+ years, but will we have robot hairdressers? Nurses? Cops? Plumbers? Robot repairmen?
These huge fleets of robots are still going to need maintenance and people will resist until they have no option.
Anyway, we're still a long way away from much more automation - a lot of the easy stuff has been done and the hard stuff isn't quite solvable yet.
We're just entering a new industrial revolution, but that's largely based in and around factories as well.
Actually we are on the cusp of a revolution in automation. AI and automation of decision making is just about to make a lot of people redundant. Over the next 20 years we can expect to see a lot of clerical, admin and service delivery roles (including things like driving) disappear. Vocational services jobs like plumbers and hairdressers will remain, but the march towards more automation is going to speed up as companies realise the potential and start investing.
We're on the cusp but we're still a generation away from it I think. AI and automation are pretty good in confined domains but we're still some way off most of them being viable in the wild.
Take voice recognition for instance; it's barely any less garbage than 10 years ago, without having to use massive remote servers.
I don't think we'll see an automation revolution until after the connected revolution. Smart homes, sensors on everything.
and if I get carried away sometimes, then apologies to my fellow dakka members.
I'm just taking issue with those media types who think we can't survive without EU membership.
I wish the rest of the EU well, but Britain will be fine.
Any reference to the past, our history and heritage, is merely to remind people that we are a talented and smart nation, and not an attempt to prove we're superior to anybody else.
Equal? Yes. Superior? No.
I hope that clarifies things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Look, the industrial revolution isn't a specific invention. It's a transitional time period. But it started in the U.K., and it permanently changed the world. So DINLT has a point, even if he didn't express it correct exactly.
EDIT: Not having a go at you DINLT. I'm actually trying to back you up.
There was an interesting interview with the Australian High Commissioner on Radio 4 this morning.
He said that Australia faced a slightly Brexit like situation in terms of trade when the Commonwealth Preference system was dissolved in the early 1970s (on the UK's entry to the EEC.)
The country had to re-evaluate its trade position, relax immigration rules and become a lot more open to international trade.
There was some argy-bargy about the immigration rules. The HC said that immigration freedom of movement was not tied to trade agreements but often was involved, for example, the rules for international company executives had to be relaxed to help attract inward investment.
Anyway, he said the UK shouldn't be pessimistic about the situation.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was an interesting interview with the Australian High Commissioner on Radio 4 this morning.
He said that Australia faced a slightly Brexit like situation in terms of trade when the Commonwealth Preference system was dissolved in the early 1970s (on the UK's entry to the EEC.)
The country had to re-evaluate its trade position, relax immigration rules and become a lot more open to international trade.
There was some argy-bargy about the immigration rules. The HC said that immigration freedom of movement was not tied to trade agreements but often was involved, for example, the rules for international company executives had to be relaxed to help attract inward investment.
Anyway, he said the UK shouldn't be pessimistic about the situation.
God bless Australia
To be fair to them, they do have a lot of raw materials, valuable minerals etc etc that the rest of the world needs, which the UK doesn't have.
Any reference to the past, our history and heritage, is merely to remind people that we are a talented and smart nation
And a cruel, vicious and warmongering nation.
If you're gonna use the past as an excuse to tell everyone how awesome you are as a nation, you best not "forget" about all the horrible things you did in the past as well.
Most of the (still existing) European countries have the blood of others on their hands, but no one has as much blood on their hands as the British.
Didn't want to get dragged into this topic again, but the amount of complacent patriotism from certain posters in this thread makes me slightly nauseous.
Any reference to the past, our history and heritage, is merely to remind people that we are a talented and smart nation
And a cruel, vicious and warmongering nation.
If you're gonna use the past as an excuse to tell everyone how awesome you are as a nation, you best not "forget" about all the horrible things you did in the past as well.
Most of the (still existing) European countries have the blood of others on their hands, but no one has as much blood on their hands as the British.
Didn't want to get dragged into this topic again, but the amount of complacent patriotism from certain posters in this thread makes me slightly nauseous.
Britain is hardly unique in having a violent past, and I've never tried to whitewash that. Your own nation, Sweden, used to meddle in the affairs of other nations at one time.
I'm not going to apologise for things that happened 200 years before I was born, and nor would I expect you to apologise for Sweden in the 30 years war.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was an interesting interview with the Australian High Commissioner on Radio 4 this morning.
He said that Australia faced a slightly Brexit like situation in terms of trade when the Commonwealth Preference system was dissolved in the early 1970s (on the UK's entry to the EEC.)
The country had to re-evaluate its trade position, relax immigration rules and become a lot more open to international trade.
There was some argy-bargy about the immigration rules. The HC said that immigration freedom of movement was not tied to trade agreements but often was involved, for example, the rules for international company executives had to be relaxed to help attract inward investment.
Anyway, he said the UK shouldn't be pessimistic about the situation.
God bless Australia
To be fair to them, they do have a lot of raw materials, valuable minerals etc etc that the rest of the world needs, which the UK doesn't have.
And wine.
I was thinking about the mining, etc. I suspect Australia would not be in nearly such a good position now if it was not for the huge demand the Chinese economy built up for iron ore over the past 30 years.
Come to think of it, though, the UK is building up a decent wine industry, thanks to global warming.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was an interesting interview with the Australian High Commissioner on Radio 4 this morning.
He said that Australia faced a slightly Brexit like situation in terms of trade when the Commonwealth Preference system was dissolved in the early 1970s (on the UK's entry to the EEC.)
The country had to re-evaluate its trade position, relax immigration rules and become a lot more open to international trade.
There was some argy-bargy about the immigration rules. The HC said that immigration freedom of movement was not tied to trade agreements but often was involved, for example, the rules for international company executives had to be relaxed to help attract inward investment.
Anyway, he said the UK shouldn't be pessimistic about the situation.
God bless Australia
To be fair to them, they do have a lot of raw materials, valuable minerals etc etc that the rest of the world needs, which the UK doesn't have.
And wine.
I was thinking about the mining, etc. I suspect Australia would not be in nearly such a good position now if it was not for the huge demand the Chinese economy built up for iron ore over the past 30 years.
Come to think of it, though, the UK is building up a decent wine industry, thanks to global warming.
And with Southern Europe getting these deadly heatwaves every summer, I think places like Britain, Iceland, Norway etc etc will be the go to places to escape the heat.
And freshwater as well. We're literally flooded out with it up here in Scotland.
Freshwater could be the new oil, and Scotland could cash in.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, as though I'm the only person here with a bit common sense, and dare I say, vision Everybody is banging on about electric cars being the future. Some people are banging on about lack of charging points in the UK.
Am I the only person here to see the common sense solution that is needed?
Get bloody building!
Replace our current petrol stations with the new tech that's needed, and build a network of charging points from Land's End to John O'Groats.
That is the kind of infastructure building that will reboot the UK's economy Seriously, I feel like launching a one man invasion of 10 Downing street and banging some heads together.
My closest car charging point is well over a mile from work, and I am in the middle of town. I've asked the councils about it, and they don't care.
As for generation, how much does the national grid rely on imported oil, gas and coal?
The UK is wet and windy. Wave and wind power should be able to sort most of that out.
Them, and solar tiles. There's a lot of unused roof-space out there.
Wind and water power can only supplement, not be the primary basis, for UK power generation.
We could invest more into nuclear for clean energy, but we're incapable of that. The plant being built at Hinkley belongs to French and Chinese state companies, which means we'll no doubt end up paying through the nose for, while its owners sit in another country safe from any environmental problems. All reward, no risk, no social responsibility.
This is typical of the problem with the UK, politicians are hell bent on selling off national industries and public services to other states, anything to get cash in hand fast, like the way Brown flogged our gold reserve cheap, like the way Osborne sold Royal Mail cheap, and then got shady about who the shareholders were. Wonder why our train tickets cost so much? Because public service companies like Arriva are owned by Deutsche Bahn, which in turn is owned by the German state. Disasters like Southern are part owned by Keolis, mostly French state owned. Abellio is Dutch state owned, . Yes, our crucifying train tickets subsidise public transport in states across Europe. More than 70% of our railways are at least part owned by foreign companies and states. Then you see our national industries in coal and steel, wound up and sold off to foreign investors to asset strip it. We now have run down and destroyed the expertise in the workforce, demolished the facilities, and have sold the dregs to companies outside the UK, and done nothing to protect them. The EU could have blocked cheap Chinese steel flooding the markets but our politicians didn't use their influence in the EU to do this. Traitors, they cut the throat of our industries. This is why we can't make anything anymore in the UK, it's all been stripped and sold off.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, as though I'm the only person here with a bit common sense, and dare I say, vision Everybody is banging on about electric cars being the future. Some people are banging on about lack of charging points in the UK.
Am I the only person here to see the common sense solution that is needed?
Get bloody building!
Replace our current petrol stations with the new tech that's needed, and build a network of charging points from Land's End to John O'Groats.
That is the kind of infastructure building that will reboot the UK's economy Seriously, I feel like launching a one man invasion of 10 Downing street and banging some heads together.
My closest car charging point is well over a mile from work, and I am in the middle of town. I've asked the councils about it, and they don't care.
As for generation, how much does the national grid rely on imported oil, gas and coal?
The UK is wet and windy. Wave and wind power should be able to sort most of that out.
Them, and solar tiles. There's a lot of unused roof-space out there.
Councils are pretty bad the length and breadth of Britain, so you're not unique in that regard.
Even if we do develop wind and wave power, the Tories would probably privatize it anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Wind and water power can only supplement, not be the primary basis, for UK power generation.
I'm not sure. Scotland is doing well with wind - Glasgow, the largest city is almost entirely wind powered, and we're one of the best for tidal and hydro-electric dams up here.
In recent weeks there have been days when 50% of the UK's electricity has been provided by renewable sources. There are various reasons for this. One of them is that the price of renewable generation has fallen much faster than anticipated.
There's no doubt that in 20 years the UK could plumb in a wide network of car charging points and supply them with an increased capacity of renewables. We haven't touched tidal power, geo-thermal or ground source generation yet, and we're only just embarking on floating wind towers at sea.
The key thing is development of storage capacity to enable renewable power to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
However, I think also we are going to see a lot more car sharing and pooling schemes based on smart technology, so there will be fewer private cars on the roads anyway. Couple this kind of scheme with self-driving vehicles and I could see Uber becoming obsolete and crashing out.
I do worry about whether the national grid can support that many new cars. I'm also really worried that people will start nicking all that excess copper that's lying around.
I don't think that we've really thought about it.
But all that infrastructure needs building, it could be huge for our economy. Get the old mills to start churning out copper once more.
Also, if the papers are true (which I doubt) we might end up forming our own EU with Poland at this rate.
No reason we couldn't. Splitting crude oil for petrol/diesel consumes a huge amount of power. Reducing that significantly will give us a lot of energy to use for electric cars.
We've also got decades to do something. A couple of modern nuclear stations for a base generation, with as much renewables as we need (like wave or offshore wind) for the rest. With smart charging, the grid usage should be well spread.
Domestic power consumption has actually been going down, presumably due to more efficient devices (TVs, white goods, kettles, light bulbs etc), so that again should free up more for electric cars.
Then there's domestic solar panels etc.
Couple all of that with higher efficiency vehicles and we should be good. If we plan for it early enough.
And with Southern Europe getting these deadly heatwaves every summer, I think places like Britain, Iceland, Norway etc etc will be the go to places to escape the heat.
And freshwater as well. We're literally flooded out with it up here in Scotland.
Freshwater could be the new oil, and Scotland could cash in.
I think you are missing the real issue with climate change. The evidence points to that all weather will become more extreme, that includes the UK; we are likely to see more flooding issues for example that a few walls won't help. Sea level rises could put most of the east Anglia back under water as well as London.
In countries nearer the equator countries will become more parched and dry, deserts will expand but the real issue is areas where wet bulb temperatures consistently exceed 35C which makes them uninhabitable to humans. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40793019. This will impact food production globally as areas are lost.
The outcome of all this is a wave of migration that will make the current migration numbers from Syria look like a storm in a tea cup and feeding the billions could become ever more difficult. Climate change has the potential to change everything - assuming Trump doesn't start a nuclear winter first.
We could try to set a leading example in electric cars. The Japanese got to where they are with regards to cars by offering reliable, well made and fuel efficient motors at time when other nations motors were unreliable, gas guzzling rust buckets with an oil embargo to make the matters worse. I say we should show the way and get electrified.
What ever happened to hydrogen powered cars though? Have there been any further developments? Oh wait, there has!
Kilkrazy wrote: In recent weeks there have been days when 50% of the UK's electricity has been provided by renewable sources. There are various reasons for this. One of them is that the price of renewable generation has fallen much faster than anticipated.
There's no doubt that in 20 years the UK could plumb in a wide network of car charging points and supply them with an increased capacity of renewables. We haven't touched tidal power, geo-thermal or ground source generation yet, and we're only just embarking on floating wind towers at sea.
The key thing is development of storage capacity to enable renewable power to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
However, I think also we are going to see a lot more car sharing and pooling schemes based on smart technology, so there will be fewer private cars on the roads anyway. Couple this kind of scheme with self-driving vehicles and I could see Uber becoming obsolete and crashing out.
Commercially viable self driving cars would help to solve a lot of the problems with electric vehicles. No need for charging points everywhere and you can just swap cars on long journeys. On the downside there would be a lot of people in the retail side of the motor industry(myself included) that would have to look for a new line of work.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain is hardly unique in having a violent past, and I've never tried to whitewash that. Your own nation, Sweden, used to meddle in the affairs of other nations at one time.
I'm not going to apologise for things that happened 200 years before I was born, and nor would I expect you to apologise for Sweden in the 30 years war.
I think when it comes to the past the the point is that the British Empire was a competitive advantage that facilitated some of the advancement that the UK created and it doesn't exist in that beneficial form anymore. Plus getting out of the EU would, again, reduce cooperation to some degree and remove some more benefits from the UK.
Kilkrazy wrote:In recent weeks there have been days when 50% of the UK's electricity has been provided by renewable sources. There are various reasons for this. One of them is that the price of renewable generation has fallen much faster than anticipated.
There's no doubt that in 20 years the UK could plumb in a wide network of car charging points and supply them with an increased capacity of renewables. We haven't touched tidal power, geo-thermal or ground source generation yet, and we're only just embarking on floating wind towers at sea.
The key thing is development of storage capacity to enable renewable power to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
However, I think also we are going to see a lot more car sharing and pooling schemes based on smart technology, so there will be fewer private cars on the roads anyway. Couple this kind of scheme with self-driving vehicles and I could see Uber becoming obsolete and crashing out.
I think focusing too much on cars is shortsighted. You want to improve public transportation as much as possible and reduce the reliance on cars. It costs less, uses fewer resources, is better for the environment, and you can read a book while communing to work. It also makes it easier and cheaper to develop energy storage solutions of you don't have to put them in a car and make them safe for traffic but can just put them in a hole or a building.
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” – Gustavo Petro
And yes, car sharing with autonomous driving should reduce the numbers even more.
Any reference to the past, our history and heritage, is merely to remind people that we are a talented and smart nation
And a cruel, vicious and warmongering nation.
If you're gonna use the past as an excuse to tell everyone how awesome you are as a nation, you best not "forget" about all the horrible things you did in the past as well.
Most of the (still existing) European countries have the blood of others on their hands, but no one has as much blood on their hands as the British.
Didn't want to get dragged into this topic again, but the amount of complacent patriotism from certain posters in this thread makes me slightly nauseous.
Britain is hardly unique in having a violent past, and I've never tried to whitewash that. Your own nation, Sweden, used to meddle in the affairs of other nations at one time.
I'm not going to apologise for things that happened 200 years before I was born, and nor would I expect you to apologise for Sweden in the 30 years war.
You're deflecting. No one in this thread has been trying to appeal to Swedish greatness in history while trying to quietly ignore the awful parts. What Sweden has or hasn't done in the past is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand other than as a means to shut down opposing viewpoints. "Everyone else was awful too!" is awfully petty when someone points out that you're glossing over the awful things that went hand in hand with what you're trying to hype.
EDIT: Mario had a much more constructive point than I:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain is hardly unique in having a violent past, and I've never tried to whitewash that. Your own nation, Sweden, used to meddle in the affairs of other nations at one time.
I'm not going to apologise for things that happened 200 years before I was born, and nor would I expect you to apologise for Sweden in the 30 years war.
I think when it comes to the past the the point is that the British Empire was a competitive advantage that facilitated some of the advancement that the UK created and it doesn't exist in that beneficial form anymore. Plus getting out of the EU would, again, reduce cooperation to some degree and remove some more benefits from the UK.
Mario wrote: I think focusing too much on cars is shortsighted. You want to improve public transportation as much as possible and reduce the reliance on cars. It costs less, uses fewer resources, is better for the environment, and you can read a book while communing to work. It also makes it easier and cheaper to develop energy storage solutions of you don't have to put them in a car and make them safe for traffic but can just put them in a hole or a building.
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” – Gustavo Petro
And yes, car sharing with autonomous driving should reduce the numbers even more.
Very good point. The reason we have so many cars and car related problems is because public transport is so poor (whilst being so expensive). Fix the public transport and we should make everything better.
We should be trying to lead the world by making cars unnecessary for most journeys, rather than trying to make them all electric. Have a look at Japans public transport infrastructure, it absolutely puts us to shame.
The EU seemed to deflect the expenses scandal that went through our parliament. That rabbit hole is deep, expenses are abused everywhere, from the EU down to local authorities.
They obfuscate and try to conceal what they can. Frankly it's a drop compared to the billions that get paid into and out of the EU, but it reflects the sorts of people running it.
Part of the reason my dad has such a hatred of the EU is the whole, "EU Auditing" situation.
Being a former accountant, he's convinced that a not-insignificant portion of EU funds ends up getting diverted straight into the pockets of the Italian mafia...
It's all rather Daily Mail headline generator to me but he stands by it.
My father stands by wanting to be able to buy New Zealand butter (which you can) and NZ lamb (which has to compete with the UK being a major sheep meat producing nation) again. He's also dead set against immigration, meaning that my wife, his daughter-in-law, could get slung out of the country.
My mother stands by I don't know what really, in her decision to vote Leave. Maybe just wanted to avoid arguments at home.
Kilkrazy wrote: In recent weeks there have been days when 50% of the UK's electricity has been provided by renewable sources. There are various reasons for this. One of them is that the price of renewable generation has fallen much faster than anticipated.
There's no doubt that in 20 years the UK could plumb in a wide network of car charging points and supply them with an increased capacity of renewables. We haven't touched tidal power, geo-thermal or ground source generation yet, and we're only just embarking on floating wind towers at sea.
The key thing is development of storage capacity to enable renewable power to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
However, I think also we are going to see a lot more car sharing and pooling schemes based on smart technology, so there will be fewer private cars on the roads anyway. Couple this kind of scheme with self-driving vehicles and I could see Uber becoming obsolete and crashing out.
Commercially viable self driving cars would help to solve a lot of the problems with electric vehicles. No need for charging points everywhere and you can just swap cars on long journeys. On the downside there would be a lot of people in the retail side of the motor industry(myself included) that would have to look for a new line of work.
While regrettable, it looks like the kind of technology change that put the buggy whip manufacturers and the night soil collectors out of work.
The question is whether there will be new jobs (wind power maintenance technician, smart car app support specialist) to replace the lost jobs, or whether some significant social change will liberate the unemployed from the expectation that they wallow in penury and misery, despised by the lucky people who have still got jobs.
Commercially viable self driving cars would help to solve a lot of the problems with electric vehicles. No need for charging points everywhere and you can just swap cars on long journeys. On the downside there would be a lot of people in the retail side of the motor industry(myself included) that would have to look for a new line of work.
While regrettable, it looks like the kind of technology change that put the buggy whip manufacturers and the night soil collectors out of work.
With cab drivers up in arms against Uber, think about what will happen when Uber does away with drivers themselves.
There is a lot of talk going around that AI bots, as well as robots and self-driving cars, are going to put huge numbers of people out of work and it's hard to see what the new jobs are going to be. In other words, mass unemployment starting to affect various types of skilled and professional jobs are reaching higher up the social class ladder.
But you can see the logic of self-driving electric cars owned communally or semi-communally. My little local Upper Market Place group of neighbours could combine to form a car sharing scheme that operates 12 vehicles -- all that will fit into the available parking -- and shares use of them between the 20 or so houses in the vicinity. To help reduce the costs of the scheme, the cars could also be made available to visitors to the town on short term hire. Private, commercial and local government schemes like that could be rolled out all over the UK, with interoperability through an AI controlled smartphone membership app that optimises use of the cars.
With cab drivers up in arms against Uber, think about what will happen when Uber does away with drivers themselves.
It wouldn't just be the cab drivers. Why bother waiting for a bus(or possibly even a train), when you can summon a self driving car that will drop you exactly where you want to go? And all with the bonus of not having to risk getting stuck near the crazy/drunk/stinker/creeper/screaming child. Add in all the people that deliver everything from oil to pizza and that's a lot of people with a redundant skill set looking for work. On top of that the industries that rely on private car ownership(everything from car showrooms to companies that make air fresheners) would take a big hit as less people bother to own there own vehicle.
I think Uber will be done way with. The logic of a nationwide car public transport system operating on big data AI software doesn't lend itself to private ownership by a single company.
I think a lot of people would still own a car, but they would rent it out on the public transport network when they weren't using it.
For example, I drive to Oxford every morning and park in the Park & Ride, and cycle into the city centre. In the evening I reverse that journey. I only need the car for an hour and a half each weekday. The car sits in the car park for at least nine hours a day. It would suit me very well if people would rent it out for local journeys during the day, so long as it was back in the car park by the time I want to go home.
It would be like an AirBnB for cars.
All that being said, one reaction to the announcement of the ban of conventional ICE vehicles from 2040 is that electric cars still produce harmful pollution from brake and tyre wear, and road surface wear, so the country just needs fewer cars. This also helps with road and car park congestion.
Car ownership on the whole probably will decline, because a good sharing system would be a lot more financial viable for most people.
All that being said, one reaction to the announcement of the ban of conventional ICE vehicles from 2040 is that electric cars still produce harmful pollution from brake and tyre wear, and road surface wear, so the country just needs fewer cars. This also helps with road and car park congestion.
Exactly. Apparently electric cars are as bad as ICE when it comes to particle pollution.
I think purpose built electric vehicles will be made lighter to help with range, and this will also help with reduction of wear and tear particle emissions.
For example the BMW i3 is one of the first modern cars designed from the ground up as an electric vehicle. It's got an aluminium chassis and passenger cell frame. The body shell is carbon fibre composite, much lighter than steel.
All that being said, one reaction to the announcement of the ban of conventional ICE vehicles from 2040 is that electric cars still produce harmful pollution from brake and tyre wear, and road surface wear, so the country just needs fewer cars. This also helps with road and car park congestion.
Exactly. Apparently electric cars are as bad as ICE when it comes to particle pollution.
He's trying to claim tyre and brake dust will become more of a problem than exhaust emissions, because current diesels produce barely (due to the particulate filters) any and (presumably) EV's are heavier so harder on tyres and brakes. But most EVs will have regenerative braking so actually use the brake pads less, and there's no way the increased tyre wear will produce more than the ICE's. He's also only talking about particulates and not emissions in general.
With cab drivers up in arms against Uber, think about what will happen when Uber does away with drivers themselves.
It wouldn't just be the cab drivers. Why bother waiting for a bus(or possibly even a train), when you can summon a self driving car that will drop you exactly where you want to go? And all with the bonus of not having to risk getting stuck near the crazy/drunk/stinker/creeper/screaming child. Add in all the people that deliver everything from oil to pizza and that's a lot of people with a redundant skill set looking for work. On top of that the industries that rely on private car ownership(everything from car showrooms to companies that make air fresheners) would take a big hit as less people bother to own there own vehicle.
A lot of people will still want to own their own vehicle for whatever reason, like convenience (keeping stuff like car seats or buggys in the car). They may just share wider across families. For instance, I can probably share a car with my wife and parents without any conflicts 99% of the time, so we could share a car between 4 of us rather than having a car each. I doubt my parents (60's) would ever buy into the idea of using a robot taxi for everything.
All that being said, one reaction to the announcement of the ban of conventional ICE vehicles from 2040 is that electric cars still produce harmful pollution from brake and tyre wear, and road surface wear, so the country just needs fewer cars. This also helps with road and car park congestion.
Exactly. Apparently electric cars are as bad as ICE when it comes to particle pollution.
He's trying to claim tyre and brake dust will become more of a problem than exhaust emissions, because current diesels produce barely (due to the particulate filters) any and (presumably) EV's are heavier so harder on tyres and brakes. But most EVs will have regenerative braking so actually use the brake pads less, and there's no way the increased tyre wear will produce more than the ICE's. He's also only talking about particulates and not emissions in general.
It says they do?
I am pleased to set the record straight on this issue. I made it clear when talking to E&T that I was basing my comments on a paper by VRJH Timmers and PAJ Achten, published recently in the journal Atmospheric Environment, ‘Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles’. Timmers and Achten report the weight of a number of electric vehicles in comparison with their internal combustion engine equivalent. In all cases, the weight of the electric vehicle was greater, the range being from 14.6 per cent to 28.7 per cent heavier. Non-exhaust emissions from road vehicles arise from brake wear, tyre and road surface wear, and resuspension of road surface dusts. All are in general terms enhanced by increased vehicle weight. Timmers and Achten acknowledge the benefits of regenerative brakes on electric vehicles and made a conservative estimate of zero brake-wear emissions for electric vehicles. Hence, their claim that electric vehicle particulate matter emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles was based upon the greater tyre and road surface wear, and resuspension associated with a greater vehicle weight.
But anyway the electric revolution is here whether one likes it or not. An EV doesn't work for me because I take long trips and the kind of autonomy electric cars is just not enough but I can see my wife's car being an electric at some point.
I live within spitting distance of a petrochemical cluster so air quality is substandard anyway.
There are two solutions to the range problem of EVs. One is to put a small back-up generator in the car. This is what the BMW i3 extended range version has. Of course, the generator fuel is petrol now, but in the future it could be hydrogen.
The other solution is to improve the efficiency of the batteries, to give them larger capacity and faster charging. This is something that is happening all the time in mobile electrical gadgets, and it will happen in cars too.
In an ideal world, you would be able to cruise your EV 100-200 miles on the motorway, stop at a service station for a wee and a coffee, plug in the car when you park, and have it charged up by the time you've finished stretching your legs. I think that's where we will be in 20 years.
How hard is it to aquire hydrogen? I heard it was catch 22; the most abundant resource in the universe yet it's always stuck to something else...or itself (in the form of helium ).
Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
But, are the new lot degraded?
Are they compatible?
etc.
Skinnereal wrote: Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
But, are the new lot degraded?
Are they compatible?
etc.
Also, whats to stop people from nicking this batteries?
Future War Cultist wrote: How hard is it to aquire hydrogen? I heard it was catch 22; the most abundant resource in the universe yet it's always stuck to something else...or itself (in the form of helium ).
Acquiring hydrogen is easy. It takes something like twice as much energy to split out of water than you get from burning it though. The bigger problem is the storage and transport of the compressed, highly explosive gas. Remember the Hindenberg?
Future War Cultist wrote: How hard is it to aquire hydrogen? I heard it was catch 22; the most abundant resource in the universe yet it's always stuck to something else...or itself (in the form of helium ).
Hydrogen is very easy to get. You just electrolyse water (using free, non-polluting renewable electricity. When you burn hydrogen the exhaust is just water.
The problem, as said above, is how to store the hydrogen in bulk because it has a boiling point of -253 degree C. There are two approaches to this. One is a conventional pressurised tank with lots of insulation. This is viable for bulk distribution, e.g. a tanker lorry, but less efficient in small vehicles.
The newer approach is to bind the hydrogen chemically to a metal substrate. This is still experimental. If it can be turned into an industrial process, it will be possible to make rechargeable hydrogen "battery" blocks. These miht be built into your car, or they might be swappable units.
Shadow Captain Edithrae asked what is to stop people from nicking batteries. The answer is the same sort of things that stop people from nicking cars or petrol or car radio units. In other words you can't 100% prevent it, but you can make it less desirable and more difficult, until you get it down to a tolerable level.
For example, no-one nicks satnavs out of modern cars because modern alarm/lock systems are really good and the satnav unit is built into the dashboard.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think purpose built electric vehicles will be made lighter to help with range, and this will also help with reduction of wear and tear particle emissions.
For example the BMW i3 is one of the first modern cars designed from the ground up as an electric vehicle. It's got an aluminium chassis and passenger cell frame. The body shell is carbon fibre composite, much lighter than steel.
Making the actual car out of fancy materials is one way to increase range. Another is to shovel more batteries in, which is roughly what Tesla do, IIRC.
BMW's forthcoming electric MINI will be the same car as the ICE versions, with only a different power source and drivetrain.
This week's Economist has a leader on the death of the internal combustion engine. They make the point that it will cause political changes as well as industrial.
A lot of oil is used for road vehicle fuel. In the USA it's over 60% of the usage. Once that drops to nearly zero, the Middle East is going to be in difficulties. Russia too, I imagine, though I think they export a lot of natural gas.
That said, the improvement of electrical power presumably may come to affect home cooking and heating as well as transport.
Skinnereal wrote: Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
Also, whats to stop people from nicking this batteries?
Skinnereal wrote: Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
Also, whats to stop people from nicking this batteries?
A big deposit. Like for camping-gas bottles.
A lot of that depends on weight. Batteries are the lightest of things.
Every mechanic I've talked to (and I've talked to a fair few) thinks that this idea has potential but they don't trust the government to do it properly.
I think the best idea are hybrid cars with small electric motors that deal with speeds of 10mph or less, then the petrol engine kicks in. It saves a lot of weight and storage issues that come with battery packs.
Skinnereal wrote: Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
Also, whats to stop people from nicking this batteries?
A big deposit. Like for camping-gas bottles.
A lot of that depends on weight. Batteries are the lightest of things.
Every mechanic I've talked to (and I've talked to a fair few) thinks that this idea has potential but they don't trust the government to do it properly.
Tesla trialed the idea and reception was dismal. So if a single manufacturer couldn't get their early adopting, extremely brand loyal customers think about what will happen when they have to sit down and agree to industry standards.
Skinnereal wrote: Replacement batteries should be how EV cars would go. No charging, as the new set are fully charged.
Drive into a bay at the service station, and it drops out the old to fit in the new set.
Also, whats to stop people from nicking this batteries?
A big deposit. Like for camping-gas bottles.
A lot of that depends on weight. Batteries are the lightest of things.
Every mechanic I've talked to (and I've talked to a fair few) thinks that this idea has potential but they don't trust the government to do it properly.
I think the best idea are hybrid cars with small electric motors that deal with speeds of 10mph or less, then the petrol engine kicks in. It saves a lot of weight and storage issues that come with battery packs.
That's broadly how the Prius and similar vehicles work, though the speed from the electric drive is more than 10mph. We're already moving beyond that, though.
Right now there are three types of EV -- all-electric like Tesla, the Prius type of hybrid with a combined power train, and the new BMW 3i type hybrid which runs on electric all the time and has a back-up generator run on petrol.
The intention in the next 25 years is to get rid of all internal combustion and go 100% electric. There's no doubt that pure electric vehicles can deliver the same or better performance than ICE cars, except for range and the speed of refuelling.
The range/refuelling issue is a bit overblown, IMO. Most of the time we don't need to drive 200 miles, refuel in 10 minutes and drive another 200 miles. The times that we do, maybe we would be happy to drive 200 miles and refuel in 20 minutes.
To look at the other side of the coin, every time you stop to refuel your ICE car, it takes 5-10 minutes to find a petrol station, pull in, wait for a pump, fill the tank and then pay. Electric cars will be able to charge themselves while parked, and never need refuelling except in the case of the 400 mile journey I described above.
To look at the other side of the coin, every time you stop to refuel your ICE car, it takes 5-10 minutes to find a petrol station, pull in, wait for a pump, fill the tank and then pay. Electric cars will be able to charge themselves while parked, and never need refuelling except in the case of the 400 mile journey I described above.
That side of the coin also has interesting talking points. Who's going to put all those charging spots where cars will spend 30-40 minutes while taking less than a € worth of electric charging?
Petrol stations are ubiquitous because they service hundreds of cars an hour and each one of them takes maybe 40€ worth of fuel on average while sitting just 1-2 minutes on the spot.
We've seen already tesla chargers getting overcrowded, with lines up to two hours on busy locations during peak times. For sure shopping centers and others places with parking spaces that really want you to stay for a while will provide charging stations (like they do now) but has anyone looked at the cost of wiring even 1/4 of the parking spots at your average shopping mall?
That side of the coin also has interesting talking points. Who's going to put all those charging spots where cars will spend 30-40 minutes while taking less than a € worth of electric charging?
Petrol stations are ubiquitous because they service hundreds of cars an hour and each one of them takes maybe 40€ worth of fuel on average while sitting just 1-2 minutes on the spot.
Lots of people will want charging stations, because those people will likely spend more money in the 20 minutes they are there (fast charging should be done in well under 40), even if it's just a paper and a coffee. Supermarkets will want them, service stations will want them, offices will want them. Even petrol stations will want them - since you don't need access to so many pumps and can run cables, you can likely replace an 8-pump forecourt with at least 24 parking spaces with electric charging. Probably a lot more than that. So whilst it may take 3x longer to refuel you can get 3x as many cars in at a time.
The profit margin on fossil fuel is dismal as it is - like a couple of p/litre, so whilst they are spending £40 on fuel the petrol station is making less than £1 on it. A lot of their profit comes from the other stuff you buy whilst in there.
Cost is a big one - it's not going to be cheap to set up so many charging points anywhere, but they'll pay for themselves pretty quickly since the ongoing costs a lot lower (since you don't need to deal with tanks of explosive material, don't need to truck it in, don't need mechanical pumps).
Things look awful right now because the EV uptake is ahead of the infrastructure, but once the infrastructure catches up we'll wonder what the big deal was.
That side of the coin also has interesting talking points. Who's going to put all those charging spots where cars will spend 30-40 minutes while taking less than a € worth of electric charging?
Petrol stations are ubiquitous because they service hundreds of cars an hour and each one of them takes maybe 40€ worth of fuel on average while sitting just 1-2 minutes on the spot.
Lots of people will want charging stations, because those people will likely spend more money in the 20 minutes they are there (fast charging should be done in well under 40), even if it's just a paper and a coffee. Supermarkets will want them, service stations will want them, offices will want them. Even petrol stations will want them - since you don't need access to so many pumps and can run cables, you can likely replace an 8-pump forecourt with at least 24 parking spaces with electric charging. Probably a lot more than that. So whilst it may take 3x longer to refuel you can get 3x as many cars in at a time.
And then there are multistory carparks... That's A LOT of extra revenue. I don't think it will be that long until virtually every parking bay has a charger.
The profit margin on fossil fuel is dismal as it is - like a couple of p/litre, so whilst they are spending £40 on fuel the petrol station is making less than £1 on it. A lot of their profit comes from the other stuff you buy whilst in there.
Gross margin for a petrol station is something more like 0,15-0,20€/L which is fine all things considered. Lower than most groceries, but higher than some high-tech products.
Setting up a domestic charge point costs something like 800 euro, even after economies of scale it will cost some serious money to wire all those parking spots.
Setting up a domestic charge point costs something like 800 euro, even after economies of scale it will cost some serious money to wire all those parking spots.
Today. That's going to drop going forward, and certainly when businesses start wanting to do tens of thousands of them.
All sorts of people and organisations will put in charge points for all kinds of reasons.
In central Henley there are two charge points in the main supermarket car park, and two charge points in the car park of the main electric vehicle service centre. There are also two BMW 3i owners with domestic charge points in their drives.
You will be correct to say that two chargers for nearly 300 car parking spaces in the car park is not going to satisfy demand. But this is the beginning of a process that will be going on for the next 25 years.
The costs will be covered by various means. Road fund tax, increased parking charges when you use the charger, annual subscription to charging networks (there are several in the UK) and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: London's Garden Bridge officially abandoned. GOOD!
Kilkrazy wrote: All sorts of people and organisations will put in charge points for all kinds of reasons.
In central Henley there are two charge points in the main supermarket car park, and two charge points in the car park of the main electric vehicle service centre. There are also two BMW 3i owners with domestic charge points in their drives.
You will be correct to say that two chargers for nearly 300 car parking spaces in the car park is not going to satisfy demand. But this is the beginning of a process that will be going on for the next 25 years.
The costs will be covered by various means. Road fund tax, increased parking charges when you use the charger, annual subscription to charging networks (there are several in the UK) and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: London's Garden Bridge officially abandoned. GOOD!
UK exports suffer biggest drop since Brexit vote, new ONS figures show
Goods export volumes fell 4.9 per cent in June, the biggest monthly fall since immediately after the 2016 Brexit vote
... this pretty much perfectly demonstrates the entire Brexit farce.
That side of the coin also has interesting talking points. Who's going to put all those charging spots where cars will spend 30-40 minutes while taking less than a € worth of electric charging?
Petrol stations are ubiquitous because they service hundreds of cars an hour and each one of them takes maybe 40€ worth of fuel on average while sitting just 1-2 minutes on the spot.
Lots of people will want charging stations, because those people will likely spend more money in the 20 minutes they are there (fast charging should be done in well under 40), even if it's just a paper and a coffee. Supermarkets will want them, service stations will want them, offices will want them. Even petrol stations will want them - since you don't need access to so many pumps and can run cables, you can likely replace an 8-pump forecourt with at least 24 parking spaces with electric charging. Probably a lot more than that. So whilst it may take 3x longer to refuel you can get 3x as many cars in at a time.
And then there are multistory carparks... That's A LOT of extra revenue. I don't think it will be that long until virtually every parking bay has a charger.
Yep, I agree. People are looking at this all wrong. They are referring to the need to go to a petrol station and fill up, then talking about doing the same thing with EVs. No longer needed. Petrol stations are needed because you are pouring a flammable, degrading liquid in to your car that needs special handling and has only one use. We are not restricted in that way with electricity. You can put a charger just about anywhere with electricity, which is almost anywhere. There are some restrictions on some types of fast chargers that won't run on domestic voltages, but these are not huge.
You can charge an EV at home, or when you go shopping, or when you are at work. With an ICE you need to go to a specialist facility, stay with it the whole time and only during their opening hours. I think we are going to see a huge increase in the number of charging points over the next few years.
UK exports suffer biggest drop since Brexit vote, new ONS figures show
Goods export volumes fell 4.9 per cent in June, the biggest monthly fall since immediately after the 2016 Brexit vote
... this pretty much perfectly demonstrates the entire Brexit farce.
No disrespect reds8n, but by now, according to hardcore Remainers (not blaming you) we were supposed to have been reduced to horse and carts for transport, and bartering for food supplies!
That has been the general narrative about Brexit.
The UK economy is not perfect, and I've long argued that on dakka, but these figures, plus the growth and tourism figures, are a welcome antidote to the doom mongering of Nick Clegg and Vince Cable who think we're going back to the Stone Age!
UK exports suffer biggest drop since Brexit vote, new ONS figures show
Goods export volumes fell 4.9 per cent in June, the biggest monthly fall since immediately after the 2016 Brexit vote
... this pretty much perfectly demonstrates the entire Brexit farce.
No disrespect reds8n, but by now, according to hardcore Remainers (not blaming you) we were supposed to have been reduced to horse and carts for transport, and bartering for food supplies!
That has been the general narrative about Brexit.
The UK economy is not perfect, and I've long argued that on dakka, but these figures, plus the growth and tourism figures, are a welcome antidote to the doom mongering of Nick Clegg and Vince Cable who think we're going back to the Stone Age!
There were lies, exaggerations and general bullcrap on both sides of the debate. However, before anyone can claim that Brexit has been a success or a failure, just keep in mind that it hasn't actually happened yet.
*link gets posted showing how exports are down 5%*
"Rah rah blame the Remoaners!"
Seriously, you're just making stuff up as you go now. You were literally caught claiming the opposite of what is true, and your first action was to deflect and continue blaming remainers.
There's a reason why you were accused of being a parody account a few pages back.
The UK's proposals, detailed in what it calls a "future partnership paper", also include the possibility of a "temporary customs union" after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 to avoid a "cliff-edge" for business as they adapt to the new arrangements.
amazing isn't it ?
Our plan is to leave and then pretend we haven't actually left.
Spoiler:
"Hellooooo. My name is Unite D Kingdom. What a nice Customs Union you have here. May I join?"
It's like abandoning ones family but turning up twice a week expecting one's conjugal rights.
I know "we" have long despaired about the quality of our leaders -- and TBF this is the same throughout the whole of human existence -- but there's times our current crop appear so shambolic one does start to sympathise somewhat with the idea that they're messing it up deliberately in some attempt to prevent the act from happening.
they've been working on things like the customs union paper for over 1 year !
And that, apparently, is the best they can come up with ?
Further to that ..
there's no sign of any attempt to buy/build new offices/buildings in places like Dover which we'll need as/when we leave.
Similarly there's been no attempt/start to recruit the replacement officials we'll need to replace those from the EU ..
The Government has spent more than £1m on recruitment consultants alone in a desperate attempt to find trade negotiators with the necessary skills to strike deals once Britain leaves the EU. The Department for International Trade spent £1.15m on recruitment agencies in the 12 months since July 2016, official figures show. It comes amid accusations that the Department is struggling to hire sufficient numbers of specialists needed to hammer out the trade deals, with ministers confirming just one appointment so far. Recruited a tiny number The details emerged through a series of parliamentary questions tabled by the Labour peer Lord Adonis, which showed the cash was paid to “organisations for services relating to the recruitment of staff”. The vast sum of money spent on solely on recruitment consultants is likely to be a major source of embarrassment for ministers who are now forced to train their own staff in negotiation techniques. “It is common knowledge around Whitehall that DIT have only managed to recruit a tiny number of experienced trade negotiators despite all this money on headhunters,” Lord Adonis told The Times. “There is a small pool of international trade negotiators and hardly any of them want to ruin their reputation by becoming trade negotiators for a British government that is unlikely to be able to achieve its objectives.” The DIT has also budgeted £1.5m to pay for external legal services for 2017/18. The figures come just a week after International Trade Secretary Liam Fox saw his trade visit to the US overshadowed by concerns around chlorinated chicken imports coming from America. Not a sensible strategy In the absence of suitable candidates being hired to handle negotiations, the DIT has been forced to try and train its own staff to “build trade policy and negotiations capability”. So far 200 DIT have undergone trade policy training, according to the International Trade Minister Lord Price’s written answer. The department has a budget of £1.6m for 2017/18 to cover training. But Lord Adonis cast major doubts on the DIT’s approach. “They are taking general civil servants and putting them through training in negotiating skills, which is rather like taking a county tennis player and putting him on a swimming course,” he said. “It is not a sensible strategy.” The DIT stressed the money was used to hire candidates across all levels of the department. “Since its formation in July 2016, the departments headcount has increased to a global workforce of over 3,200 people. The Trade Policy Group that includes policy and country specialists, as well as expert economic analysts and lawyers, has itself quadrupled in size,” a spokesperson said. “To ensure the department gets the brightest and best people available, at every level, recruitment costs have been spread across the board through both external and internal service providers and are managed locally.”
R
It's the lack of fore thought and planning that ... horrifies I guess ...... me most of all.
Yee haw and a wing and a prayer is no way to try and run a country.
I've never argued that the UK is perfect, and I've long bemoaned the lack of vision for Britain's future. God knows I've mentioned it here a few times.
But there are people out there, praying night and day for Brexit to fail, just so they can say I told you so. I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of holding that position, bt they are out their in the world: the Blairs, the Cleggs, the Cables etc etc
And another thing, this 350 million a week is subject to us leaving the EU. Then we get the cash. I know that, most people I know that.
And chlorinated chicken? It may never happen. And if it does, you have the option not to buy it.
If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.
Well I'm glad you're not having a go at me, because Im not claiming anything bad happening to the economy is down to Brexit ... because it hasn't actually happened yet!
I did vote remain, but I'm entirely neutral on whether Brexit will be good or bad overall. I simply voted remain because I don't trust the Tories with my employment rights. Past experience suggests they don't think I should have any and leaving the EU removes the ability to appeal to the European courts when the UK government starts trampling on people.
Things are not perfect, but their not as bad as some people are making them out to be. Aren't we all supposed to be back to the Stone Age by now for turning our backs on the EU?
If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.
Well I'm glad you're not having a go at me, because Im not claiming anything bad happening to the economy is down to Brexit ... because it hasn't actually happened yet!
I did vote remain, but I'm entirely neutral on whether Brexit will be good or bad overall. I simply voted remain because I don't trust the Tories with my employment rights. Past experience suggests they don't think I should have any and leaving the EU removes the ability to appeal to the European courts when the UK government starts trampling on people.
I despise the Tories more than anybody, but I never let that stop me for voting to leave the EU.
IMO, the ECJ has no business overruling Britain on anything. It robs us of sovereignty.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've never argued that the UK is perfect, and I've long bemoaned the lack of vision for Britain's future. God knows I've mentioned it here a few times.
But there are people out there, praying night and day for Brexit to fail, just so they can say I told you so. I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of holding that position, bt they are out their in the world: the Blairs, the Cleggs, the Cables etc etc
And another thing, this 350 million a week is subject to us leaving the EU. Then we get the cash. I know that, most people I know that.
And chlorinated chicken? It may never happen. And if it does, you have the option not to buy it.
I did have a vision for Britain's future. One in which it took a more active role in shaping the EU into something better. Now my vision for Britain's future is one in which the next generation take us back into the EU
However, the 350 million a week was a lie. It ignored rebates and ignored that a lot of that money comes back to the UK in EU spending. Boris tried to bluff it out as money we don't control, but the fact remains that the extra 350 million a week to spend on the NHS claim was a deliberate and cynical attempt to lie to the British people.
*link gets posted showing how exports are down 5%*
"Rah rah blame the Remoaners!"
Seriously, you're just making stuff up as you go now. You were literally caught claiming the opposite of what is true, and your first action was to deflect and continue blaming remainers.
There's a reason why you were accused of being a parody account a few pages back.
I'm countering the narrative the this country is going down the pan. The UK isn't perfect, but I've never argued that it was.
I make no apologies for the millions of people like me who had the guts to stand up to the EU and denounce it for what it is: an anti-democratic, corporate racket!
Other people support the EU, and voted Remain, and I respect that, but I shall exercise my democratic rights and peacefully protest and criticise those pen pushers in Brussels!
You're exercising your democratic right to make stuff up. It isn't the first time it's happened and it won't be the last. You're becoming what, in my opinion, whembly was to the US politics thread.
You just claimed that the British exports have never been better only to immediately be proven wrong. Instead of pausing to reflect you instead make up a story about how you're "countering the narrative". You either lied or were ignorant. Own up to it.
You've got every right to continue to criticise the EU and people who are in favour of membership have every right to continue to espouse that view too.
While you might be tired of the people who blame everything on Brexit, I'm equally tired of the, "you Remoaners lost so you have to shut up now", brigade.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're exercising your democratic right to make stuff up. It isn't the first time it's happened and it won't be the last. You're becoming what, in my opinion, whembly was to the US politics thread.
You just claimed that the British exports have never been better only to immediately be proven wrong. Instead of pausing to reflect you instead make up a story about how you're "countering the narrative". You either lied or were ignorant. Own up to it.
Ok, so I was ignorant, no big deal. Happy to admit my mistake.
None the less, and this is only my opinion mind you, I consider myself, and other leave voters to be the only true radicals in this day and age.
Who was supporting the EU? The banks, big corporations, the political elites, the Tony Blairs of this world etc etc
That was reason enough for me to get the hell out.
God bless the working classes for taking a stand against that corporate racket in Brussels!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MonkeyBallistic wrote: You've got every right to continue to criticise the EU and people who are in favour of membership have every right to continue to espouse that view too.
While you might be tired of the people who blame everything on Brexit, I'm equally tired of the, "you Remoaners lost so you have to shut up now", brigade.
The Remain voice needs, and deserves to be heard. You may disagree, but I wish Remain supporters would come on board and help build the UK for the future challenges that lie ahead.
Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but a small minority of Remainers are hell bent on reversing the referendum. My beef is with them.
Ignoring reality to make up your own facts is pretty radical, especially if we consider that "radical" is from the Latin "radex", meaning "root". Contempt for facts, "the elite" and "experts" is entirely in line with radicalism, I'm not going to argue there.
There's nothing wrong with reversing the referendum. The UK is supposed to be a democracy. Referenda aren't binding. It is completely undemocratic and unconstitutional to say that Remainers should not be allowed to argue against Brexit and/or for a second referendum.
IMO the main reason that ardent Leavers are against another referendum is that they are afraid they will lose.
I'm countering the narrative the this country is going down the pan.
Really? Because you're the one consistently coming in here and ranting about spiralling crime sprees and Britain having no coherent vision for the future.
Kilkrazy wrote: There's nothing wrong with reversing the referendum. The UK is supposed to be a democracy. Referenda aren't binding. It is completely undemocratic and unconstitutional to say that Remainers should not be allowed to argue against Brexit and/or for a second referendum.
IMO the main reason that ardent Leavers are against another referendum is that they are afraid they will lose.
I'd lay long odds on Leave winning another referendum, and you can quote me on that!
Besides, as I've said before, we did have a second referendum: The Lib Dems ran on a second referendum ticket in June.
They were shot down in flames and were lucky to get 12 seats.
I'm only a cottage industry, I grant you, but since the referendum, my exports of Warhammer stuff for sale have been snapped by lots f people living abroad, so that's success in my book.
As for your other point, I think we can safely rule out Trump's opinion on anything, but I'll give you Liam Fox.
Kilkrazy wrote: There's nothing wrong with reversing the referendum. The UK is supposed to be a democracy. Referenda aren't binding. It is completely undemocratic and unconstitutional to say that Remainers should not be allowed to argue against Brexit and/or for a second referendum.
IMO the main reason that ardent Leavers are against another referendum is that they are afraid they will lose.
I'd lay long odds on Leave winning another referendum, and you can quote me on that!
Besides, as I've said before, we did have a second referendum: The Lib Dems ran on a second referendum ticket in June.
They were shot down in flames and were lucky to get 12 seats.
You can't leap to the conclusion that everyone who decided to vote for any party other than the Lib Dems is against a second referendum.
I'm countering the narrative the this country is going down the pan.
Really? Because you're the one consistently coming in here and ranting about spiralling crime sprees and Britain having no coherent vision for the future.
Kilkrazy wrote: There's nothing wrong with reversing the referendum. The UK is supposed to be a democracy. Referenda aren't binding. It is completely undemocratic and unconstitutional to say that Remainers should not be allowed to argue against Brexit and/or for a second referendum.
IMO the main reason that ardent Leavers are against another referendum is that they are afraid they will lose.
I'd lay long odds on Leave winning another referendum, and you can quote me on that!
Besides, as I've said before, we did have a second referendum: The Lib Dems ran on a second referendum ticket in June.
They were shot down in flames and were lucky to get 12 seats.
You can't leap to the conclusion that everyone who decided to vote for any party other than the Lib Dems is against a second referendum.
What other conclusion can you draw? Vote for us and we'll hold another rrefrendum. The people said no. Brexit is obviously a very big issue, but the people sent the Lib Dems packing.
British history shows that a single issue can win the day. Sein Fein ran on an Irish independence ticket in 1918 and won 73 out of 105 seats.
That's 69% which is more than the 66% two thirds majority i.e overwhelming support.
You can win on a single issue ticket, but the Lib Dems were just gak poor.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: You've got every right to continue to criticise the EU and people who are in favour of membership have every right to continue to espouse that view too.
While you might be tired of the people who blame everything on Brexit, I'm equally tired of the, "you Remoaners lost so you have to shut up now", brigade.
The Remain voice needs, and deserves to be heard. You may disagree, but I wish Remain supporters would come on board and help build the UK for the future challenges that lie ahead.
Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but a small minority of Remainers are hell bent on reversing the referendum. My beef is with them.
We keep hearing this. It is the same argument rolled out by the anti EU people every time anyone says anything that does not 100% agree with what they have said. Any questioning or disagreement is dismissed as being "remonaners wanting to stop us".
There issome good news about Brexit. It's just not widely reported. If we're so doomed why did BMW decide to build the new electric mini here? And isn't our own GW doing excellent business export wise?
Plus, voting to remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. It was only a matter of time before we were forced into adopting the euro and ceeding more control to Brussels. Plus, the eu itself isn't looking too stable these days. The structural problems of the euro persist and it looks like Poland could be on their way out.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: You've got every right to continue to criticise the EU and people who are in favour of membership have every right to continue to espouse that view too.
While you might be tired of the people who blame everything on Brexit, I'm equally tired of the, "you Remoaners lost so you have to shut up now", brigade.
The Remain voice needs, and deserves to be heard. You may disagree, but I wish Remain supporters would come on board and help build the UK for the future challenges that lie ahead.
Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but a small minority of Remainers are hell bent on reversing the referendum. My beef is with them.
We keep hearing this. It is the same argument rolled out by the anti EU people every time anyone says anything that does not 100% agree with what they have said. Any questioning or disagreement is dismissed as being "remonaners wanting to stop us".
Absolutely the remain voice must be heard. Leave might have won, but 48% of people who voted voted remain. That's a lot of people too. They deserve to be taken into account when we negotiate our future relationship with the EU.
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
It's often overlooked that thousands of migrants are still trying to head to Europe from Africa, and across the Mediterranean. This is putting huge pressure on Greece and Italy.
We don't seem to hear about it anymore, and I've yet to see the EU produce a plan to tackle the problem.
That Inews article was sad. Arguing against something that "people" on the other side of an argument are saying without actually referencing who you're arguing against has to be the most transparent strawman ever.
Plus, voting to remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. It was only a matter of time before we were forced into adopting the euro and ceeding more control to Brussels. Plus, the eu itself isn't looking too stable these days. The structural problems of the euro persist and it looks like Poland could be on their way out.
This is the exact kind of nonsense that we're tired of hearing. The UK had a veto. The EU could never force us to adopt the Euro, nor cede more power to Brussels without the UKs elected officials doing so willingly. Any new powers given to Brussels requires passing through the EU Commission and Parliament and then needs to be ratified by the member states, which in the UK requires an act of Parliament.
There is zero way that the EU can enforce greater expansion of powers onto the member states without them agreeing to do so.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's often overlooked that thousands of migrants are still trying to head to Europe from Africa, and across the Mediterranean. This is putting huge pressure on Greece and Italy.
We don't seem to hear about it anymore, and I've yet to see the EU produce a plan to tackle the problem.
When the EU wanted to make member states actually contribute you called it overreach.
Plus, voting to remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. It was only a matter of time before we were forced into adopting the euro and ceeding more control to Brussels. Plus, the eu itself isn't looking too stable these days. The structural problems of the euro persist and it looks like Poland could be on their way out.
This is the exact kind of nonsense that we're tired of hearing. The UK had a veto. The EU could never force us to adopt the Euro, nor cede more power to Brussels without the UKs elected officials doing so willingly. Any new powers given to Brussels requires passing through the EU Commission and Parliament and then needs to be ratified by the member states, which in the UK requires an act of Parliament.
There is zero way that the EU can enforce greater expansion of powers onto the member states without them agreeing to do so.
Anti EU propaganda has been based on lies for decades. You can't expect them to change their story and come clean now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's often overlooked that thousands of migrants are still trying to head to Europe from Africa, and across the Mediterranean. This is putting huge pressure on Greece and Italy.
We don't seem to hear about it anymore, and I've yet to see the EU produce a plan to tackle the problem.
Perhaps you don't have access to Google. it took me about 5 seconds to get these links about EU plans to tackle the problem.
But those elected officials are so easy to butter up aren't they? Tony Blair (the PM with the srinking majority) would have had us join the euro had Brown not stopped him. Then Brown went ahead and signed us up to the eu constitution without asking us. Brown the unelected PM. All you have to do is ensure that they have cushy jobs in the eu after they leave their respective parliaments and you can get them to agree to anything.
This is one reason why I voted to leave. I was tired of our representatives passing the buck up to the eu whilst argeeing to everything they proposed without consenting us. For me the Lisbon treaty was the straw that broke the camels back.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's often overlooked that thousands of migrants are still trying to head to Europe from Africa, and across the Mediterranean. This is putting huge pressure on Greece and Italy.
We don't seem to hear about it anymore, and I've yet to see the EU produce a plan to tackle the problem.
Perhaps you don't have access to Google. it took me about 5 seconds to get these links about EU plans to tackle the problem.
No disrespect Kilkrazy, but the EU's plan is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard!
200 millions Euros is a pitiful amount, and as the articles rightly point out, Libya is a mess with rival governments and bandits roaming the country with impunity.
The legally recognised government would struggle to close down a hot dog stand, never mind stop the people smugglers.
Yes, I'm aware that it was Britain and Cameron's bombing campaign that wrecked Libya, but I was dead against it from the beginning.
but there's times our current crop appear so shambolic one does start to sympathise somewhat with the idea that they're messing it up deliberately in some attempt to prevent the act from happening.
I have to assume they are; at least in as much as they know they have an impossible job and are stalling in the hope that something becomes easier for them.
But there are people out there, praying night and day for Brexit to fail, just so they can say I told you so
I don't think anyone is hoping that it'll fail so they can gloat. Plenty (including me) hope it'll fail so that we can quickly find something that works.
Who was supporting the EU? The banks, big corporations, the political elites, the Tony Blairs of this world etc etc
That was reason enough for me to get the hell out.
God bless the working classes for taking a stand against that corporate racket in Brussels!
... but by voting out you're handing so much more power to the people you're presumably taking a stand against. The political elites and businesses in the UK are literally the only ones that'll benefit here. May's already hammering our rights and talking about things like weakening employment rights and business taxes further to make the UK more attractive to businesses. We've kickstarted a race to the bottom.
The Remain voice needs, and deserves to be heard. You may disagree, but I wish Remain supporters would come on board and help build the UK for the future challenges that lie ahead.
Whenever the Remain voice makes itself heard, it's shot down as trying to subvert the will of the people. Like the Gina Miller stuff - all she was insisting was that the law was upheld and that May had to get Parliamentary approval. Her and the judges that agreed with her were then branded, and I quote exactly "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" by the press.
You Brexiteers screwed all of us this up. Why the gak are you wanting us to step in and fix it for you? You already have our advice - don't do it.
Herzlos, when you have such an important issue as this, and when both sides are convinced they are right, then all you can do is let history be the judge.
It'll be 5, 10, maybe even 20 years before we know who was 'right.'
Future War Cultist wrote: But those elected officials are so easy to butter up aren't they? Tony Blair (the PM with the srinking majority) would have had us join the euro had Brown not stopped him. Then Brown went ahead and signed us up to the eu constitution without asking us. Brown the unelected PM. All you have to do is ensure that they have cushy jobs in the eu after they leave their respective parliaments and you can get them to agree to anything.
This is one reason why I voted to leave. I was tired of our representatives passing the buck up to the eu whilst argeeing to everything they proposed without consenting us. For me the Lisbon treaty was the straw that broke the camels back.
No, Brown did not sign us up without asking. The actual act of signing the treaty is just for show, it is not binding on the UK until it passes Parliament. Parliament got its say and said yes. We are a Parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy. You, along with everybody else in the country, could have written to their MP to let them know their wishes in that regard.
Democracy is a form of government which requires active participation. You don't need to wait for the government to ask you, you can tell it.
Yes, I'm aware that it was Britain and Cameron's bombing campaign that wrecked Libya, but I was dead against it from the beginning.
What wrecked Libya was a civil war. Libya was being torn apart either way. All the bombing campaign did was help to bring about a faster result. If we hadn't got involved it would have just ground on and on, as the Syrian Civil War has. End result is still thousands of people fleeing a war torn country. It is actually possible that if we had generated international support for more direct action, we might have even generated a better result. The circumstances were different enough compared to Iraq to have our involvement in a boots on the ground capacity in support of rebel groups actually generate support amongst the local populations which could give us sway in helping to then assist in the formation of a new government and consolidation of the rebel groups to try and prevent the splintering that occurred.
EDIT:
Nice to see that Theresa May is still keeping her eye on the vitally important things http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40948412 You can easily identify the people who have no fething clue about working in any kind of environment where you are exposed to noise and the risks involved.
"We're going to leave the EU and reclaim our sovereignty!"
"Oh, but we still want all the benefits"
I'm not quite sure what they're thinking with this one.
It is interesting. Yesterday was 'we want to stay in the customs union for an extra 2 or 3 years, but during that time enjoy the benefits of being out of it', ie negotiate new trade deals. Today was 'we insist on taking back control of our borders, except the border with Ireland, where we want as few changes as possible, ideally none'.
If is nice that we finally see some sort of position, but I can't see either of these selling in Europe, makes me think Davis & co have decided the whole thing is a non starter, so propose stuff that sounds reasonable but will be rejected, then blame the EU when that occurs.
Or of course, the EU agree to everything, and Brexit is a huge success.
The Ireland border is turning into a big deal, which actually ought not be a surprise given that it will be a 310 mile long land border with 200 crossing points between the UK and the EU.
The UK Gov released a position paper today which has at the least given some kind of view into the government's thinking about this issue. It is a key issue because of what I mentioned above, and because the EU have put it down as one of the negotiating points to be resolved before talks can begin on trade relations.
Predictably, no-one has said the UK Gov paper is the acme of marvellous solutions. In truth it is difficult to see how the UK can maintain a soft border with Eire because it would be a backdoor into the EU. From that angle you can understand the EU are nervous about it.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.
And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.
And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?
A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.
And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?
A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?
Which is great, but does nothing to address his main point of contention.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.
Have you any idea how difficult that is? I was born there and yet I can't get German citizenship (looked into it as soon as the wrexit result was announced).
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.
Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.
And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?
A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?
He's worked all over Europe, including the UK, because he was able to and worked in a field that enabled him to do a few years here, a few years there. Now that right to looking like it could go and he had no say in the matter. Nor did EU citizens living in the U.K. When you start to think about it, the vote actually starts to feel a little rigged.
Predictably, no-one has said the UK Gov paper is the acme of marvellous solutions. In truth it is difficult to see how the UK can maintain a soft border with Eire because it would be a backdoor into the EU. From that angle you can understand the EU are nervous about it.
Actually there was a soft border in Ireland for decades, until the Troubles forced it to be closed down. At that time, though neither Eire nor the UK were members of the EU (which didn't actually exist at the.)
The problem now is whether it is possible to have an open border there, while Eire is part of the EU and Northern Ireland isn't.
Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.
If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.
Well gee. Brexit HASN'T happened so crediting it for good things is flat out lying. Cannot have positive effect when it hasn't happened. See how your exports(which you were already caught about LYING. your creditibility is flat out zero since you provenly invent stuff up) deal when you are out of free market.
Also economics are up everywhere and things rarely have immediate effect. You are benefitting from what started taking place BEFORE brexit. Just like finnish goverment is being dishonest how their actions are only reason finish economy is recovering when root cause has started even before they stepped in power you are being dishonest here.
Or Trump claiming how his actions have been so good when he's just reaping delayed effects of precursors.
Frankly not surprised. Leavers are happy to invent their own narrative and ignore facts so no surprise it continues with you.
Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.
I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?
I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.
Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.
I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?
I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.
Right at the moment no option is workable.
The only option that will keep the NI government working is no visible boarder restrictions between Eire and NI between NI and the mainland UK . Put a boarder between NI and Eire and the nationalists will see it as an attempt to split Ireland. The removal of a boarder was key to the peace process. Put boarder control between NI and the mainland and the Unionists will see it as a step towards a united Ireland. This will cause issues for the peace process and the DUP will pull out of the government and we will have another election.
The third plan basically goes "seamless boarder something something tagging goods something ANPR computer stuff STOP TRYING TO DERAIL BREXIT YOU REMOANERS!".
In other UK news, Argos has been caught with their pants down paying under minimum wage and fined for it. Frankly, I think their punishment is pitifully low for such a large corporation. It really does seem that in contemporary Western economies, large companies can break the law freely, pay tiny (comparatively) fines, and executives always pass the buck and walk free. White collar crime does far more damage than some bloke breaking into a car to steal a wallet, but the latter seems to be treated far more harshly.
Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.
I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?
I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.
In effect NI would be British but outside the border. If you wanted to travel to/from NI and mainland UK, you would need a passport or other ID, but you wouldn't need to present these documents at the NI/Eire border. This would be a similar status to the Channel Islands or Gibraltar. It works because the sea is a physical boundary.
I'm assuming the volume of movement across the land border is much greater than the volume of movement across the sea/air border. I've read that 30,000 people commute daily between NI and Eire for jobs.
Kilkrazy wrote: Actually there was a soft border in Ireland for decades, until the Troubles forced it to be closed down. At that time, though neither Eire nor the UK were members of the EU (which didn't actually exist at the.)
The problem now is whether it is possible to have an open border there, while Eire is part of the EU and Northern Ireland isn't.
Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.
Yes, but now the RoI is in the EU that solution doesn't work anymore.
If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.
Well gee. Brexit HASN'T happened so crediting it for good things is flat out lying. Cannot have positive effect when it hasn't happened. See how your exports(which you were already caught about LYING. your creditibility is flat out zero since you provenly invent stuff up) deal when you are out of free market.
Also economics are up everywhere and things rarely have immediate effect. You are benefitting from what started taking place BEFORE brexit. Just like finnish goverment is being dishonest how their actions are only reason finish economy is recovering when root cause has started even before they stepped in power you are being dishonest here.
Or Trump claiming how his actions have been so good when he's just reaping delayed effects of precursors.
Frankly not surprised. Leavers are happy to invent their own narrative and ignore facts so no surprise it continues with you.
The point I failed to make was that some people want to have it both ways. Anything bad happens is because of Brexit, and anything good happens has to be because Brexit hasn't happened yet i.e there is no way in their mind that leaving the EU can ever be a good thing, so praise is either grudging or non-existent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think Britain has out manouvered the EU on the Irish border issue.
Britain is bending over backwards to promote the idea of no borders, but it's the EU who are saying borders might be needed.
If this issue breaks down, Britain could be seen to be the 'good' guy, and the EU the 'baddies'
I think it will play well with a Middle England audience.
I'm not saying it's right, but I suspect Britain has moved to occupy the moral high ground if things go downhill, and my gut instinct tells me there is a good chance of this happening.
The point I failed to make was that some people want to have it both ways. Anything bad happens is because of Brexit, and anything good happens has to be because Brexit hasn't happened yet i.e there is no way in their mind that leaving the EU can ever be a good thing, so praise is either grudging or non-existent.
Not quite. I've not heard of anything good about Brexit yet because any good things (where they exist) haven't happened yet. Same with the bad things.
There are some bad things that can be directly attributed to Brexit (like banks moving staff to the EU, EU agencies leaving London, the GBP value), but there have (as of yet) been no good things directly attributed to Brexit.
There's been lots of good things happening, and they are universally held up by Brexiteers going "look! It's not all bad!". A lot of them haven't held up to much scrutiny (like exports increasing when they haven't).
I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think Britain has out manouvered the EU on the Irish border issue.
Britain is bending over backwards to promote the idea of no borders, but it's the EU who are saying borders might be needed.
If this issue breaks down, Britain could be seen to be the 'good' guy, and the EU the 'baddies'
I think it will play well with a Middle England audience.
I'm not saying it's right, but I suspect Britain has moved to occupy the moral high ground if things go downhill, and my gut instinct tells me there is a good chance of this happening.
You'd be right, I disagree with you. There's a lot of effort to try and frame the UK as being the good guy, so we can play the underdog and blame the EU when it doesn't work. That's always going to happen.
I don't see how we're playing them into a corner. We asked for borders, but are also asking for no borders. It's pretty gobsmackingly obvious that if we don't want free movement, we need a border between the UK and the EU. If we don't want free trade, then we need a border between the UK and the EU.
If we have a soft border at any point, then it automatically becomes a back door into the EU - which neither us (all those foreigners!) and them (risk of us being used to bypass trade conditions/taxes/standards by importing via the UK).
Whilst you think we're doing a great job of promoting open borders (when the Leave campaign was predominantly about closing them), how the gak do you think they'll actually work?
I don't see how we're playing them into a corner. We asked for borders, but are also asking for no borders. It's pretty gobsmackingly obvious that if we don't want free movement, we need a border between the UK and the EU. If we don't want free trade, then we need a border between the UK and the EU.
If we have a soft border at any point, then it automatically becomes a back door into the EU - which neither us (all those foreigners!) and them (risk of us being used to bypass trade conditions/taxes/standards by importing via the UK).
Whilst you think we're doing a great job of promoting open borders (when the Leave campaign was predominantly about closing them), how the gak do you think they'll actually work?
Precisely. The UK voted for Brexit ostensibly because they wanted to regulate their borders, because they didn't trust the EU in doing so.
Now suddenly they do?
There's no cake and eat it scenario here. Put the border on the sea (as per Irish proposal) and the DUP and other unionists will fume, put a hard border and the republicans will riot. Keep people and stuff freely flowing and the whole corps of leavers will demand May's head. Someone will feel deeply wronged no matter the outcome. And it's not like May has rock-solid support.
is one thing, but is it a sign of anti-Semitism gripping the left?
Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
