Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'll be blunt, extrapolation of past events for future predictions is the entire basis of empiricism and the scientific method. Otherwise I'm left guessing if a rock will still fall to the ground next time I drop it, or if my car will spontaneously turn into a fish next time I unlock it.
Well that's the funniest interpretation of scientific method I have ever heard. Firstly blanket extrapolation is not scientific method. It assumes that without understanding the previous trends that those trends will continue regardless; there's no scientific basis to this. It's actually something to be avoided because it can make decisions that would have been widely different when you get the actual data (Badger blasting is a good example here). Proper scientific method would be to produce a hypothesis and develop testable theories as to scenarios you can expect. You then analyse the data and see whether the data fits the hypothesis (or not). If it does fit then you go out and get more data to check whether it continues on following the predicted path. If at some point it deviates significantly (and by this I mean that the change is statistically significant, not that it's just large change if the errors are large) then you use the combined data set to produce a new hypothesis and so on. You can't just extrapolate a data point 20 years hence from current data and say "yeah look it's definitely going to happen, dude because the EU did these things in the past". I'll also point out that interpolation (i.e. the assuming you can draw conclusions between two data points is also risky if you aren't well sampled).
So lets take the example of dropping a rock. It's not falling to the ground because it has always done it in the past and hence always will. It falls to the ground because of gravity and Newton first postulated this. From his work he realised that every body with mass is gravitationally attracted to each other. So strictly speaking the Earth also falls towards the rock at the same time because the same gravitational force applies to each body (the only difference being the mass of each body means one 'falls' a lot less). This could also be applied to planets as well and it seemed to fit. Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus all fit the theory. Now simple extrapolation would then imply Mercury would also fit this model and that this extrapolation is correct so we could ignore it and go home and have a tea and biscuit for a job well done. Yet scientific theory is about breaking the theories we know. So some one did measure Mercury and they found an oddity...it didn't fit the theory; and people were stumped as to why all the other planets fit, but this one didn't. So people produced new theories and they tested them and one by one they fell by the way side. Until one day a clever person called Einstein had a thought called Special and General Relativity. And he theorised that we weren't falling to towards the centre of mass of a body, but in fact we were in motion around each other because the mass of any object curved space time (much like a ball bearing would move round a bowl if you flicked it in). This then explained Mercury's motion and yet no one then extrapolated this into definite outcomes. Tests for the theory was devised and as yet no-one has been able to 'break it' (such as with the gravitational wave experiment); and yet we know there is an issue somewhere - Quantum Mechanics another very well tested theory (such as CERN) and General Relativity don't fit together. We can't also explain what happens at the centre of a black hole as General Relativity breakdowns at this point. So hence that rock which we confidently predicted falls to the ground as that is what it always done from extrapolation isn't correct. In reality what happens is that the rock and Earth move in each others curved space time around each other and that only stops because other forces (namely the electromagnetic ones) get in the way as they are much stronger than gravity and stop the motion. However if the say a fragment a neutron star much more massive than the Earth turned up a miles above us (lets hope not because then we are screwed) then both the Earth and the rock would start moving both in each others space time curve as well as the fragment and that falling to earth that always been observed will definitely not be happening in the same way!
The point of all this is that scientific theory is about using *new* data to test a hypothesis. The moment you start using old data to extrapolate a theory you are significantly at risk of bias and 'selecting' data that fits your views (and it happens even sub-consciously which is why medicine uses double blind trials). This is why I say you can't use the past direction of the EU and it's Directives to predict an outcome. You need to postulate a theory and then go out and get new data to predict what could happen in the future. For example with the EU I hypothesise that in the future the rate of new directives will decrease as time goes on. I postulate that as we are now nearer the creation of the EU there are more policies that all 28 members can agree on, because all members can see the benefits. As time goes on however the 'low hanging fruit Directives' will all be picked and more and more Directives will come along that not all nation states seem as beneficial and that will require greater negotiation to eventually arrive at a policy that is acceptable. I eventually postulate that we get to a steady state where net policy changes will be relatively small and more based on how the world is changing rather than vast drafts of changes continuing. So what evidence would I need to test this; well the large numbers of changes since the 70's doesn't help because that can't distinguish between a continuing steady increase, my postulation, or even a sudden hockey stick approach. I need evidence that changes are slowing down; well we do have the work on mobile phone tariffs been equalised when using them abroad in the EU, that has now been scrapped; the US trade deal also seems to be on the rocks. But it's not enough data, all I can say is that possibly fits but could still be within a reasonable grounds of uncertainty. So do I think I have seen any potentially comparable circumstances; well possibly. The UKs recycling rate in the early 2000's jumped dramatically over 10 years (an EU Directive policy btw) but has significantly slowed in recent years. This can be attributed to the low hanging fruit (paper, card, green waste, glass and metals) being easy to get out in the early years. However with almost full capture now of this material what is left to recycle is more tricky and costly, such as electricals, batteries, food waste, nappies etc as such these are going to take more time and funding to get right, hence the slow down in the rates. Extrapolation would imply and ever slowing rate, but still an increase; but it could be theorised that with ever reduced funding we could actually see a fall, we just need to get more data to test which theory might be correct (at the moment both theories fit).
So in a nutshell I only argue those points which I don't think there is evidence such as suggestions that the EU is suddenly going to try and take over everyone's military. One document has been linked to from an EU think tank group discussing the merits of a joint task force to combat issues in the future from smugglers and possible aggressors but there is no evidence that this is being put in place yet (not that I think it necessarily a bad idea) and absolutely no evidence that the EU is about to take control of any military asset of another country. So when I say this is extrapolation it is because it is. It assumes that the rate of change in the past will be the same as in the future no testable theories as to it happening.
And to point out I don't think the EU is all roses. One policy I can't really abide is the common agricultural policy (CAP). 50% of the EUs funding goes towards this and then vast quantities of this goes to the north-western countries (including the UK). I don't think it is a good policy because (a) it's illegal as deemed by the international courts (to point out the US also do the same thing); (b) that it hinders 3rd world countries from being competitive and drives destruction of things like rainforests to remain at least slightly competitive; (c) it can encourage creating vast quantities of food for no particular reason other than keeping things cheap for the Europeans. I don't however think that leaving the EU over this issue should happen. As being able to influence the issue might produce a better more legal policy. I am supportive of funds to keep areas for the wildlife in the CAP but these areas are generally in useless areas anyway and they are not linked throughout the Country so you just get little areas of wildlife, but should something happen (such as a diseases kills off all the worms) then because areas aren't linked they become useful only to those that can easily exploit the area (like Pigeons). On the other hand the UK will have to make a decision as to whether it keeps something similar if we leave the EU. That means the money has to come from somewhere (and that £350m per week is already answered for isn't it?). Alternatively the UK doesn't pay it to farmers or reduces it but then that instantly means British farmers, whether that's milk, eggs, wheat, asparagus or lamb are at a disadvantage compared to the EU. So do you tax the EU for their imports, well possibly but that's goodbye to any free trade deal on food; what about selling to other countries, well you are still competing against your neighbours who have a greater subsidy and who can sell it cheaper than we can. What does that leave us with well you could relax environmental standards, allow nastier more effective chemicals to be used though it might destroy the countryside eventually and rivers as it is washed downstream possibly with impacts on human health. Maybe you allow GM crops instead (though I am on the fence on this one, because I think the data is a bit flaky at the moment - my biggest concern is the modified genes getting into wild plants, like grasses which has been shown can happen rather than on any 'health' issues). So in reality I think staying in the EU is better because we can both influence and have our say on policies whereas you are potentially at the mercy of them outside it.
But the EU is far from perfect, far from it, but to the extent I think leaving is bad idea. What I don't like is the Leave side continuously stating "They are taking away our control", "They're going to steal our military", "Immigrants are bad and keeping down wages", "The EU prevents from selling bendy cucumbers" etc etc when there is little evidence for it (or it's not even the EU's policy) and is usually tied into much more complex, legal and domestic policy decisions that folks (especially the Tories) care to admit. I'm quite happy to discuss the finer points of policies and their strengths and weaknesses of each but I will have a more 'aggressive defence' strategy when it comes to a lot of the nonsense that is bandied about for leaving the 'evil' EU.
It's an open secret that the EU deliberately engineered the means for countries who were not suitable, by the EU's own measures, to join the single Currency.
And that's just in the last two pages that I cared to look in (I've highlighted the words for clarity)...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Since when are referenda not democratic? They are literally how parliament operates. They all vote yes or no.
(or abstain...) but that's the point. The UK democracy works on a system of electing representatives who act on our behalf (in theory for the betterment of all society, but that's questionable sometimes). Those elected representatives are responsible to the people for their actions and what course of action they choose. A referendum 'circumvents' that democratic responsibility. Put it this way, when things go wrong whether they are leaving the EU related or not they will just point at the populace and say 'it's your fault, you voted to Leave, suck it up" even if whatever event happened isn't really attributable. You can already see this in May's language - she now says things like "the British voters want to control immigration" and so on - it's subtle but it's changing the language so if things go wrong it was because they were doing the "will of the British people". It distances them from whatever bad happens (but you can be damned sure that good things they will say they put in place, it won't be the British voters then!)
You can have a 'direct democratic' system where the populace makes decisions but that requires we have out say on all policy decisions because you need to be able to choose the outcome (for example we should have a referendum as to where that '£350m' gets spent). We wouldn't need MPs then, they would be surplus. Civil servants/the public would prepare different policies whether that be the national speed limit or the EU and we would vote on each one in referenda. Barring that this is relatively impractical it will likely lead to chaos as you end up with a mixed bag, non-policy based set of legislation depending on the whims of the population at the time. It also leads you massively open to populists notions.
You shouldn't really mix and match as that leads to voting for representatives on our behalf that then have to implement policies based on a populace decisions whether that is better for the population or not. For example if you had a referendum on what the national speed limit should be do you think 70, 80 or 90 would win? The MPs then implement that but then what is the point of the MPs if you are forcing them to do something that they, in theory have much more detail on, and don't think is a good idea? Who is then to blame if more people get killed on the roads, who should take responsibility; the MPs well they were only enacting the will of the populace; the civil servants who drafted the policy; the person that originally thought of the idea; everyone who voted? Suppose then that there was a massive smash resulting from people driving at 90 and lets be extreme and 100 people die tragically because two full double decker buses hit each other. Then maybe we'd get a referendum on reducing speed limits to 40. That goes through (we don't want those sorts of accidents again) and this time it ruins the economy because no one can get anywhere. Again who is responsible? I appreciate the example is extreme, but in some ways no more than leaving the EU is; the population as a whole is flaky and prone to choosing the current populist choice without any real though to long term policy. In theory elected representatives should be less constrained by this and be able to look at policies more holistically. This is why almost all Democracies are based on elected representatives not on the basis of referenda (which are used as gauges as to the populaces mood more than anything else).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/10 20:52:19
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
There is actually. 4 Decades of European mission creep. Its inevitable, this is the MO of the EU and how it's always operated. Decades ago, the British people were sold on the idea of the EEC as a free trade zone, and were assured there would be no political union.
That's not evidence, that's extrapolation of past events to an uncertain conclusion. It's the same as me saying that because we had more rain today than yesterday, that tomorrow we'll have even more rain than today and the day after that even more rain - it's nonsense without proper evidence.
I'll be blunt, extrapolation of past events for future predictions is the entire basis of empiricism and the scientific method. Otherwise I'm left guessing if a rock will still fall to the ground next time I drop it, or if my car will spontaneously turn into a fish next time I unlock it.
I know you're on a mission to fight every even vaguely pro-Brexit or anti-EU statement in this thread to the bitter death, but there's a point at which it becomes silly, you know?
SirDonlad wrote: [You stated that "Most were pretty flabbergasted by the number of people that got duped into the thinking the EU was the result of all our woes" and i brought up a peice of legislation to show that the uk parliment still makes some of it's own decisions and therefore the eu can't be 'the result of all our woes'.
In order for them to be the sole cause of every problem would require them being in direct control over everything britain does and they don't.
But that's the point, whatever was the flavour of the day was pointed at the EU as the issue because of 'red tape' or 'not being democratic'. Yet in reality many of the issues had complex roots and a few share of them could be pointed at how the UK has legislated rather than the rawEU policy. But it has been easy for politicians historically (which came to haunt them) or others during the Brexit campaign to mislead the public. Take for example Boris's stand on Asparagus and that the EU 'tells us' what it can look and feel like and leaving the EU will allow us to do what we want with asparagus. When in actuality it is the UN that defined such standards and had nothing to do with the EU; it was deliberately misleading the public.
No! the 'point' is that these people (who i am starting to doubt their existence) are diminutising the opposition to such an extent that they ascribe stupidity like believing the 'determination of fruit/vegatable shape' thing to everyone who holds the opposite position to them. "because you'd have to be stupid to not think like i do" Those people can take a running jump of a bridge. if they actually exist that is.
Spoiler:
To be fair, when you sell weapons to a military you supply them with stuff for money and what they decide to do with that stuff after the fact is on their head; when you supply money to a known war criminal you prop up their regime and everything it stands for. Supplying money to isis makes you a terrorist, but being the shop which sold the guy the gun who then went out shooting people doesn't. Theres also the contractual angle to it - military hardware isn't something which is kept until sale, it's commissioned production and a contract can take years to fulfill depending on the tech - even bulk production of small arms and ammunition takes time to deliver in large numbers securely - if you agree to deliver something it doesn't matter to the banks what the other party goes on to do with it - if you refuse to deliver, it has to be on legal grounds. fethed up, but our vote can't affect that, sadly.
Last time I looked Sudan's leaders weren't encouraging people to blow up innocents in other parts of the world because they didn't agree with a fanatical interpretation of a form of religion.
I' afraid to say the best way to leverage change is through money even though it may leave a particularly bad taste in the mouth to start with. You offer money, let it settle for a bit; when people get comfortable you start using the pressure of money to influence the changes.
On Friday, the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/North (SPLM-N) secretary general Yasser Arman said they received accurate information about a plan named “Khartoum Operation” to fund the RSF from the EU money and particularly from Germany besides providing it with logistical support from Italy.
We have tried the remove with force approach in both Iraq and Libya and that just lead to chaos and infestation by fanatics.
Iraq and libya were about oil and gold, nothing more. you got caught up in the media haze and missed it.
In some ways a beneficent Dictator is better than utter chaos. As I said before the difference with money is it is there to help and hopefully some will get through and in time you can use that money to influence change. With weapons they have only one use, and that's to kill or injure. It is not impossible to stop sales of weapons to countries that are using them in inappropriate sales. After all France did it with a warship.
Are you suggesting that international sanctions as a way to promote regime change should be avoided and that we should in fact fund the janjaweed militias because it will 'settle' after a while?
Propping up a regime makes you just as guilty of it's crimes as it is - the only people who don't think so are working at the clinton foundation. (who support the president of sudan)
Who's forces are they going to be cooperating with when they decide that they all want their own SAS and SBS? or trident access?
Would saying no count as 'making our own defence decisions' or would the obligation to 'cooperate' with directives override that?
It sounds like it wasn't discussed enough (or the debaters were biased).
It says co-operation not 'theft of armed forces'. In fact it specifically states that Countries will have control over their own armies. The idea being that if something bad happens then all countries can be able to co-ordinate a joint plan and support each other. Because of the way the EU works that almost certainly means only ever a defensive force, because every nation state would need to agree to it. Suppose someone did invade Greece and the UK agreed to assist by using the SAS; how's that an issue?
Secrecy is a huge part of our our special forces members safety and nuclear deterrent's effectiveness - if an external threat knew where our subs were they would be almost useless. Don't even suggest something which could reveal their position because it will not get implemented, end of. Same goes for the SAS and SBS. Plus the way things stand, if you want training by the SAS etc then you have to pay for it. This arrangement assumes that the other nations have a right to the training, no mention of payment or funding.
I hardly think they are going to need Trident.
They don't have to need it - the wording says that if you have a deficiency then the other states have to supply access to theirs via 'cooperation'
They already do assist many countries in joint operations (but not really visibly). In fact there are not many recent wars that our forces have not been under control of another nation states co-ordinated operations. Iraq and Syria was the US, Libya was France.
All of those had multiple countries forces involved - you just pointed out who initiated the first strike in each.
Even WWII retake of Europe was under the control of the US.
Incorrect - it was a joint command and the beach invasions were done with different nations in charge of each; we had gold and sword beaches, the Americans had omaha and utah, canada had juno. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force and General Bernard Montgomery was the commander of the 21st Army Group, which comprised all the land forces involved in the invasion. we had more control than any other nation - we planned it, we prepared for it and we controlled our troops during and after it.
The only few we have been directly in control of were only just short of a FUBAR.
Proof? last one i'm aware of off the top of my head was 1982 and we won that one against a much larger force on the other side of the atlantic.
Don't you mean 'America'? and isn't blair in some gak over what he did/said in relation to that?
We were just as complicit. But that's the point, given recent history it's more likely that the UK will act aggressively than the EU.
Actually, the french were ripe for bombing in libya to the point that they announced their air campaign at the meeting where nations were going to decide on what course of action to take.
We only jumped into wars like you're making out when tony blair was in charge - he did the Kosovo War, the Sierra Leone Civil War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War.
Sorry, but thats a laughable assertion. When you're talking about the technical and tactical advancement the German military had available to them, teaming up to be shot in a group won't change anything. apart from the bodycount and ammunition expenditure of course.
No not really, if it had been Europe vs Germany at the beginning of WWII then it would have never got off the ground.
But it wasn't that simple was it - some countries agreed with national socialism and joined Germany early on - war was declared reluctantly after poland was annexed. In a totally-not-like-the-EU manoeuvre Hitler wanted to 'unite' areas around Germany and make them economically subordinate to germany, so poland and France resisted.
The French and British Navy was vastly superior in strength and numbers at the beginning than what Germany had.
have you heard of the 'pocket battleship'? Bismarck and the prinz eugen were faster, more accurate and had bigger guns than anything we had. The bismark destroyed the best ship in the British navy.
Our fighter planes were technically superior in dog fights to the Germans (if not the bombers and raw speed).
What about the Messerschmitt Bf 109K? it made more ariel kills during ww2 than any other fighter plane! military history and technology are clearly not your thing.
Our radar was technically superior.
correct. right up till they developed airborne radar and focussing dishes for their radar. the only advantage we had was the cavity magnetron which allowed us to do sub-centimeter wavelengths.
The total forces that could have been arrayed against Germany would have probably been even too much for a Blitzkrieg if they were properly managed and co-ordinated and you could have simply starved them out (effectively what happened at the end). Instead the Germans were allowed to fight on their terms encircling isolated forces and removing them. By the time any co-ordinated action was taken it was by far too late and meant the forces were stretched far too thinly trying to hold back a more manoeuvrable opponent (and led to friendly fire incidents too like sinking the French fleet just in case).
No, just no. When it came to attacking france the germans avoided the maginot line (built because the German army was so much bigger and better) and went to where the french had their best troops stationed and cleaved through the lot - they swept through france and forced back the french, belgian And British forces who had to evacuate at dunkirk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation The spanish had just been in a massive civil war (ww2: the prequel), Italy joined Germany as did austria, switzerland was doing gold-laundering on the sly for Germany as well as allowing German trains through loaded with Jewish people destined for a gas chamber; so in fact all available international forces in Europe at the time were from the outset of hostilities, engaged against the Nazi war machine and failed due to being technically outclassed. Just looking into the standard infantryman's rifle for each side shows how far behind we were technologically - our biggest advantage consistently was turning up in unexpected places with cheap, easy to make equipment in great numbers (sherman tank, p-51 mustang, the sten gun, lancaster bomber, etc).
Don't even start trying to paint the Germans at that time as anything less than the new benchmark for war - they changed war, despite what ron perlman says.
Mankind is, was and always will be selfish. (love the post-apocalyptic strawman though! fallout ftw!)
That's not really true, because then there would be no donations of kidneys or bone marrow. There would be no donations to charity, no 'Feed the World' songs and so on.
The only reason people donate anything is because they want "to feel good about doing something for someone" - most people don't examine the "i want to.." bit of the reply.
We are very altruistic when it comes to the 'family' because from an evolutionary stand point that means our genes are more likely to be passed along. The issue is when we stop seeing other people as part of the family and they become 'enemies' that we must compete with. That's why so many people like Humans vs Aliens films like Independence day because it is about a 'family' standing up against an enemy/rival. Rather than seeing the EU as a rival we need to see them as a family by learning and getting to know people and their cultures - it strengthens both us and them.
Thats an absurd analogy to apply to nations - they aren't our 'family' and never will be - the EU was trying to push that line but it's just a drive to create a new super-power.
The notion of needing to group ourselves to a continent as defined by the olympic rings was a Nazi ideal to support their expansionist policy which is now kept alive in a star-trek style fantasy that after joining into one governance that we would drop money, use credits, gain warp travel, meet the aliens, join the galactic federation and explore the stars with replicators and bring peace throughout the galaxy.
(10)In order to ensure a prompt correction of excessive deficits, it is necessary for Member States that are in a situation of excessive deficit to take effective action and to achieve an annual minimum fiscal improvement in their cyclically adjusted balance, net of one-off and temporary measures. As a benchmark, countries in excessive deficit will be required to achieve an annual minimum fiscal effort in cyclically adjusted terms, net of one-off and temporary measures.
Is it that unreasonable to expect countries to live within their means (it's not as if they held a gun up to their head forcing them to do it. But after Greece debted itself up to the eyeballs is not unreasonable to expect some form of fiscal sense when managing their own finances? And to point our the UK's austerity went miles beyond what the EU recommended. The EU never said that you had to punish the most vulnerable so you can be debt free after 5 years. The UK put forward forced austerity measures as a method for more privatisation and funding big business.
It's only reasonable for greece to have to get it's national debt down, but when their currency is linked to several others, they cant just revalue their currency like they needed to.
Our national debt only rose above the ~40% mark was because of the massive financial crash of 2008 which nearly destroyed global finance and us bailing the financial system of the uk out.
The sweeping demand by the EU that we all had to take action on was to rescue the collective credit rating of the EU which dived as a result of it's incompetence in integrating failing economies with successful ones and thinking that nothing would mis-match.
Yeah, the fracking thing took a blow with the reduction in oil price, but it's not dead yet.
And the Tories don't want it to be either. We are actually in a rather bizarre situation where the OPEC countries are pumping out more oil than we really need to try and kill off the opposition. However we are past the point of peak extraction (i.e. every unit of oil is now getting more expensive to extract, because it is in harder less accessible places) so eventually fuel will go back upwards. We're currently benefiting from this because it's keeping food production, haulage etc prices reasonable but it effectively hiding a bigger issue. Once fuel starts heading upwards things are going to get really messy as inflation rises which is outside the control of the individual nations. Which is why the UK government is quite happy to pass laws allowing extraction in a national parks or other areas of natural protected areas.
Yes, yes, but it's pointless discussing it frankly. (no offence intended)
I'm pretty sure that ireland/apple/taxation will remain an EU issue for some time to come given that the irish are fighting the decision - i'm willing to bet a shiny pound and it's postage that ireland will win with it's counter-arguments and apple will continue paying almost no tax. (bet only available to 'whirlwind')
I don't think they will win, the bill might go down. The real question is whether Ireland will actually apply it because they know the incentives for such companies to stay there will significantly diminish. There needs to be a radical overhaul of the tax system for the globalised era but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Well they were correct in that regards the pound lost 20% of it's value in a few hours and required the Bank of England to pump billions of £s into the system to help to try and resuscitate it. Even the Black Wednesday crash had warning signs well before it actually happened - you actually only need to look at household discretionary waste arisings. They had been dropping through the floor years before that recession happened (and also repeated in the just gone recession). It's not entirely clear why because people were still buying, but they just weren't getting rid of the old. But I digress, the warning signs were available if maybe just not in the direct economy. Also Black Wednesday is the reason we now have the Bank of England make these decisions because the UK government didn't simply know which levers to pull and just were just randomly pulling this and that in the hope it would work. However the point still stands, we have had nowhere enough time for the implications of Wrexit to feed through the system. It will take years, and maybe even years after if we leave the EU.
Okay, but given that we have to wait until we actually exit to see how it's going to go, speculating that it's going to go badly is just as inaccurate and futile right?
fething hell, these replies are getting lengthy - are you getting paid for the time on your end? i'm not.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
Big equates to effective/trained/experienced/whatever.
The last war the Germans were involved in (Afganistan) resulted in their troops (the much vaunted Fallschrimjaeger no less) being holed up in base until they had been suitably brought up to speed. No doubting their equipment and resolve but six decades of enforced pacifism has denuded them of the cutting edge they once had.
The British army absolutely covered itself in glory during the Battle of Basra, basically we completely withdrew from Basra city due to increased insurgent attacks and went firm around the airport which allowed the various dodgy militias to take over the place. This forced the Iraqi army to launch its own (successful) operation to retake the city. When the Iraqi army thinks that you did a bad job well....
Prior to this we thought that we were the best army in the world for conducting peace keeping and anti insurgency operations. Evidently not.
I have served for 12 years (including tours in Iraq and Afghan) and I can say that the whole 'be the best' thing is little more than propaganda. We are well trained and well equipped professionals but then so are other countries. The reality is that the UK possesses a good defense force but with a limited capability to be deployed overseas. The entire armed forces are now smaller than the "Contemptible little Army" that deployed to France in 1914.
welshhoppo wrote: Since when are referenda not democratic? They are literally how parliament operates. They all vote yes or no.
Exactly. You either agree with the bill or you don't. That's a binary choice.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Well that's the funniest interpretation of scientific method I have ever heard. Firstly blanket extrapolation is not scientific method.....
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. I said 'basis of' (or foundation of for a different word). Not 'entirety of'. I'm not thick enough to try and summarise the entire concept of scientific method off that one statement, it's why I had 'empiricism' in the same sentence. You're jumping to a conclusion and force-feeding an imagined counterargument into my mouth in order to produce something you can spend six paragraphs arguing with.
In all honesty, it's made me feel like not bothering debating with you, because it leaves me feeling like I say X exists, and you jump in and go 'SO X+Y=Z EH?! LET ME TELL YOU A THING!' I've got too much writing to do in my real life to spend my days hammering out paragraphs that bounce off that sort of approach to debate!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 10:55:20
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's not my field of expertise but Wiki states that "Friedrich Engels stated that Political economy, in the widest sense, is the science of the laws governing the production and exchange of the material means of subsistence in human society..." and that "William Stanley Jevons, a proponent of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocated economics for brevity and with the hope of the term becoming "the recognised name of a science"". But I am open to being corrected on this.
The major difference between this sort of science is that you can't rerun the scenarios over and over like you would do in the 'pure' sciences to determine what the statistical error is on the data and whether it was a statistical outlier.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
That post was very hard to read so I didn't. Could you format your posts better, thanks.
You may want to have an asessment for dyslexia if you genuinely can't read that. You have to pay for the assessment yourself sadly since the NHS can't fund it, but systems are in place to repay your costs if you do have an SpLD.
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexic/getting-an-assessment-for-dyslexia Dakka is really good for those with SpLD's because of the black background and white text - it's great for the visual stress!
Not so good when tying a reply thanks to the white box you get to type in, but you can't have it all your own way, right?
There is a reason for the earlier layout though, the dakka system doesn't like spoiler boxes within spoiler boxes and when military history or technology is mentioned, me and my bookshelf can't have inaccuracies go unchecked.
From my perspective we totally did what we could in basra - there was no glory we could have gained from sending guy's out in snatch landrovers when iran was supplying the Three forces attacking us with shaped-charge munitions
Were we really, seriously going to send them out on patrol to die like that? feth no.
Most criticism came from the US military, and largely because they were getting their guys killed and we were trying to avoid that.
Even if you were in a properly armoured vehicle you weren't safe in basra.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-had-to-get-out-soldiers-tell-of-escape-as-warrior-caught-fire-314262.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
Are you sure?
Something being 'badly formatted' looks like this...
Ugly Formatting:
Spoiler:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men — living and dead — who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us: that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and,that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Good formatting looks like this...
Good Formatting:
Spoiler:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men — living and dead — who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us …
That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion
That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and,
That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I think you're trying to insult me in a way which can't be flagged to the mod's tbh.
Carry on!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
No! the 'point' is that these people (who i am starting to doubt their existence) are diminutising the opposition to such an extent that they ascribe stupidity like believing the 'determination of fruit/vegatable shape' thing to everyone who holds the opposite position to them. "because you'd have to be stupid to not think like i do" Those people can take a running jump of a bridge. if they actually exist that is.
I don't think everyone thinks that this is the case. The issue is that if enough people believe it then it can sway a result or further bias them. That's why Boris actively promoted it (and it was shown on the BBC/ITV without challenge) because it can be enough to sway some people. There was even a conversation in this very post many 10's of pages back where you could see enough people believed that the fruit/veg claims were 'true' and argued it. It's not the only piece of the puzzle by any stretch, but enough misinformation can change results. I suppose what should at least happen before a referendum is held that an independent body (as much as practical) prepares a report on the impacts and the opposing parties can then argue the semantics rather than both sides stating outlandish claims to a public that can't really understand the minutiae of the statements.
plan named “Khartoum Operation” to fund the RSF from the EU money and particularly from Germany besides providing it with logistical support from Italy.
Are you suggesting that international sanctions as a way to promote regime change should be avoided and that we should in fact fund the janjaweed militias because it will 'settle' after a while?
Propping up a regime makes you just as guilty of it's crimes as it is - the only people who don't think so are working at the clinton foundation. (who support the president of sudan)
There's no illusion that some of the money will go to acts of violence just as deplorable as what goes on around the world. The question is whether it can *eventually* improve the situation. Sanctions don't seem to work (North Korea is an example here). Invasions don't really work because of the opposition to it and a naïve hope that we'll go in beat the person we don't like and then leave (Iraq). Supplying arms to rebels doesn't work (Syria). Ignoring it doesn't work because they find funding from less scrupulous suppliers anyway. So trying to encourage a country to improve with cash injections seems just as feasible. Yes some of it goes in directions that are not the intent. However there is a difference in supplying arms to a regime that we know is causing civilian casualties vs providing funds that you can direct and hope at least some goes to improving the situation. Maybe the better route would be to provide specific equipment rather than cash (water filtration systems, equipment to generate electricity) but then there is still no guarantee that they will get to the people that need it. To re-iterate you can only use weapons to kill people, they are no good for farming, digging wells, providing electricity, building schools etc. At least cash can at least be used for these purposes if not all of it is.
As for whether sanctions work over other methods of persuasion is probably enough work for several tens of thesis's and probably not best discussed. Albeit to say that many sanctions don't work because there generally isn't a global will to act on them and usually one party or another ignores or blocks it. In addition many of these countries have large open ill defined borders so actually policing these will be an exercise in frustration (and you may only just end up angering and entrenching the regime further. On the other hand dialogue and financial incentives may eventually help to break the deadlock as peoples lives become more comfortable, lack of resources becomes less of an issue and employment becomes higher. Yes you might have to sacrifice some integrity in the short term and have to minimise unwanted use of the funds but with a bit of patience maybe a better world will result. A good example may be Cuba; perhaps one of Obama's greatest legacies will be the thawing of relations between the US and Cuba. Sanctions didn't work, yet dialogue did even if you don't approve of the country's methods.
Secrecy is a huge part of our our special forces members safety and nuclear deterrent's effectiveness - if an external threat knew where our subs were they would be almost useless. Don't even suggest something which could reveal their position because it will not get implemented, end of. Same goes for the SAS and SBS. Plus the way things stand, if you want training by the SAS etc then you have to pay for it. This arrangement assumes that the other nations have a right to the training, no mention of payment or funding.
They don't have to need it - the wording says that if you have a deficiency then the other states have to supply access to theirs via 'cooperation'.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force and General Bernard Montgomery was the commander of the 21st Army Group, which comprised all the land forces involved in the invasion. we had more control than any other nation - we planned it, we prepared for it and we controlled our troops during and after it.
Just because they have shared command doesn't mean that they need to know the exact location of any of the forces. At that level it becomes about strategic decisions, rather than application of individual forces. That would be the decision of individual commanders. To have a deficiency you have to have a need for something, I fail to see how defending the EU would require the need for a nuke or two. Not unless you are proposing that they used the nukes on the EU
To quote wiki "By the end of 1944, Eisenhower, through SHAEF, commanded three powerful Allied army groups. In the north British 21st Army Group commanded by Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery ("Monty"), in the middle the American 12th Army Group commanded by General Omar N. Bradley, and in the South the American 6th Army Group commanded by Devers." He became over time the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Yes each command group was planned there own engagements but overall control was with the US.
We only jumped into wars like you're making out when tony blair was in charge - he did the Kosovo War, the Sierra Leone Civil War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War.
The point being that recent history suggests that we are more aggressive than other EU countries (although that doesn't necessarily it mean it will be true in the future which I will concede).
Sorry, but thats a laughable assertion. When you're talking about the technical and tactical advancement the German military had available to them, teaming up to be shot in a group won't change anything.
On that principle then the Russians should have lost substantially. There is no denying casualties would have been high, but I'm talking way before the UK, French and Belgium got involved. In the (very) hypothetical situation where all the EU nation states had co-ordinated their actions immediately after Germany started showing aggressive tendencies then there was a higher probability that the domination of Europe wouldn't have happened. In reality by the time the above three woke up and did something it was by far too late. On the other hand if joint operations between French and British Navy could have easily blockaded Germany's ports simply because combined they were more than a match for what Germany had at the time when it started showing aggressive tendencies. The Bismark and the BF109K didn't sail get used until 1941 and 1943 respectively, way past the time I'm talking about. However it is all very hypothetical though and these changes would have affected how Germany would have reacted as well. The only point I am trying to make is that co-ordinated multinational response to threats can be more effective because you cover other nations weaknesses with your strengths and vice versa (in exactly the same way as you combining a Tau and SM army together would mean you can benefit from both their advantages and minimise each others weaknesses).
The only reason people donate anything is because they want "to feel good about doing something for someone" - most people don't examine the "i want to.." bit of the reply.
That's an absurd analogy to apply to nations - they aren't our 'family' and never will be - the EU was trying to push that line but it's just a drive to create a new super-power.
The notion of needing to group ourselves to a continent as defined by the olympic rings was a Nazi ideal to support their expansionist policy which is now kept alive in a star-trek style fantasy that after joining into one governance that we would drop money, use credits, gain warp travel, meet the aliens, join the galactic federation and explore the stars with replicators and bring peace throughout the galaxy.
But the feel good factor is an evolved response to being part of a family. It's the same with sex, caring for a baby, giving presents or donating. The body dopes us with a drug so we fell good and do it again. That's how we've evolved to work as family unit.
In actuality we are all family, we're all related to one single women; the genetic variation in the human race is actually tiny compared to what we expect from a species of our age. The general theory goes that the human species became almost extinct at some point and we're probably all related to one tribe that managed to survive. There's a lot of evidence to show that the more you get to know another group or person then more you see them as part of the family group. There was a program (I think channel 4) showed of people from Leicester where one person who was dead set against polish immigrants lived and worked with one and by the end of the series was acting to protect this person from an unscrupulous landlord who was exploiting her. The Nazi ideal was to create a super race dominant above others who were then effectively slaves; that's not what we are talking about here. We're talking about a large 'family' group that works together for the overall benefit of the family. The only barriers to this are the barriers we put up ourselves (again an evolved response).
Our national debt only rose above the ~40% mark was because of the massive financial crash of 2008 which nearly destroyed global finance and us bailing the financial system of the uk out.
Strictly speaking the Banks (or one particular one) was also responsible for Greece fiasco
In all honesty, it's made me feel like not bothering debating with you, because it leaves me feeling like I say X exists, and you jump in and go 'SO X+Y=Z EH?! LET ME TELL YOU A THING!' I've got too much writing to do in my real life to spend my days hammering out paragraphs that bounce off that sort of approach to debate!
Entirely your prerogative. I'll miss the conversations; thanks for all the fish
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 13:08:43
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Britons could be forced to pay for permission to travel to the EU after Brexit, the home secretary has admitted, warning that the restrictions are likely to form part of the negotiations over departure.
In her first significant interview since taking over the post in July, Amber Rudd said the possible need to apply for permission to travel under a visa waiver scheme being considered by the European commission was not the preferred option but could not be discounted.
Asked on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday if UK nationals might be shocked to have to pay for permission to visit France, Rudd replied: “I think they would be surprised. I don’t think it’s particularly desirable, but we don’t rule it out, because we have to be allowed a free hand to get the best negotiations.”
She added: “My reaction to that is it’s a reminder that this is a two-way negotiation. The EU and the commissioners may be considering issues, alternatives. They will be considering their negotiations with us, just as we are with them. But I’m going to make sure that what we do get is in the best interests of the UK.”
On Saturday, the Guardian reported that as part of draft European commission legislation for the EU travel information and authorisation system (Etias), France and Germany both back a system based on the US Esta scheme, which requires visitors from countries that do not require full visas to apply online for permission to travel, preferably 72 hours before they leave, at a cost of $14 (£10).
As EU citizens, though not from the Schengen free movement area, UK nationals must show a valid passport to enter the zone but can then travel freely within it. But after Brexit, British citizens could have to apply through the Etias scheme and pay to visit, legal experts told the Guardian.
Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said Rudd’s comments pointed to “yet another example of the drift and confusion as a result of the government’s failure to plan for Brexit”.
He said: “The home secretary’s words will not have reassured ordinary families about the cost of Brexit. She seems to be sympathetic to an idea that will put a flat £50 tax on the average family holiday in Europe. Tory ministers might think nothing of that, but it would make it even harder for ordinary families to afford a holiday.
“Norway doesn’t have the charge so why should we? I challenge the home secretary to rule it out.”
Rudd, a prominent supporter of remaining in the EU before the June referendum, otherwise gave very few details of how she might seek to balance controlling immigration numbers from the EU with keeping some access to the bloc’s single market.
“What I do think the British public voted for was to make sure that we reduce immigration from the European Union,” Rudd said. “That’s a given. We have to find a way of doing that. I wouldn’t necessarily say what it means to do with the single market, but what I would say is we have to work out how we can do that, while promoting and protecting the economy.”
While confirming the intention to reduce annual net migration to the tens of thousands, Rudd said she could give no details as to which areas would be tackled.
“I can’t tell you which portion of which area of immigration we’re actually going to drive down more than the other,” she said. “Because we’re going to be entering into a negotiation with the European Union.”
Pressed on details, Rudd echoed Theresa May’s words on Brexit, saying: “I know you want me to give a running commentary on the negotiations, but I’m not in a position to do that.”
She added: “What we’re going to look at is how we can get the best for the economy – driving the numbers down but protecting the people who really add value to the economy. I can’t give specific areas at the moment.”
With May ruling out a points-style system last week, Rudd was asked if there would be some sort of work permit scheme for EU arrivals. She said: “I think that work permits certainly has value. But as I said, we’re not ruling anything out at the moment.”
Amid concerns from universities that student arrivals could be reduced, Rudd sought to give some reassurance. She said: “We’re looking at a number of options. But students do make an important contribution. There’s going to be no blanket banning students coming to the UK. But we are looking at bringing down the numbers overall.”
Finally, Rudd was asked about about her comments during the Brexit campaign about Boris Johnson being “the life and soul of the party, but he’s not the man you want driving you home at the end of the evening”.
Asked if she was happy with Johnson at the wheel now he is foreign secretary, Rudd responded: “Boris is not the driver. Theresa May is the driver. The rest of us are in the car. She’s very clear we’re all focused in the same direction.”
Oh good.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I'm probably going to have to get an Irish passport if Brexit imposes immigration controls simply to cut down on all the pointless bureaucracy that it would entail.
TBF the original story is from the Sunday People so probably codswallop.
In the previous article I especially like the line about reducing the # of foreign students, which goes against the entire Govt. policy since the coalition came to power and against the "advice and guidance" given to UK universities earlier this week.
Physics departments will have to get cracking on Schrodinger's student who is both in the Uk and not simultaneously.
The Govt. seems to have a head start here so they'll be of use.
Disgraced but amazingly somehow back in power Minister Liam Fox -- who voted for Brexit -- came out and called British business leaders fat and lazy -- work wise -- and said they spend too much time on the golf course etc etc
hmmm..
Bit like an arsonist who set fire to house blaming "fat and lazy" firefighters for it burning down.
Amazingly enough his comments haven't been well received,
And of course a wee while back he was complaining that "remainers" were talking negatively about British business and how we'd do post Brexit.
We’ve got to change the culture in our country. People have got to stop thinking about exporting as an opportunity and start thinking about it as a duty. Companies who could be contributing to our national prosperity but choose not to because it might be too difficult or too time-consuming or because they can’t play golf on a Friday afternoon. We’ve got to be saying to them: if you want to share in the prosperity of our country, you have a duty to contribute to the prosperity of our country.
That's a tory govt. minister claiming that companies have a duty to the state.
Still, if Brexit does go tits up that's the blame shifted nicely.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 14:45:36
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
welshhoppo wrote: Since when are referenda not democratic? They are literally how parliament operates. They all vote yes or no.
Exactly. You either agree with the bill or you don't. That's a binary choice.
The process of the formation of Acts of Parliament is significantly more complex than a referendum.
Obviously there is debate, readings, committees, amendments, counter amendments and so on, but in the end IMO, it boils down to a yes no decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disgraced but amazingly somehow back in power Minister Liam Fox -- who voted for Brexit -- came out and called British business leaders fat and lazy -- work wise -- and said they spend too much time on the golf course etc etc
hmmm..
Bit like an arsonist who set fire to house blaming "fat and lazy" firefighters for it burning down.
It's probably the one thing that everybody on this thread, be they remain, be they BREXIT, agree upon: Fox is corrupt and a liability.
I'm surprised May brought him in from the cold. He should have been exiled to Skegness
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/11 16:27:37
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Physics departments will have to get cracking on Schrodinger's student who is both in the Uk and not simultaneously.
That's simple, this only applies whilst they aren't being observed. So if you don't count them then they were both here and not here at the same time.
Seriously though this could have massive impacts on the funding for Universities. Many rely a lot on external students to balance the books because they can charge higher fees. If they clamp down on this then they will have to make significant savings, which means less courses. The ironic thing is that the fees they are allowed to charge to UK students only make sense for non-science and engineering courses. Things like Physics, Chemistry, engineering etc that rely on lab work is actually significantly much more expensive to run (about £4000 more per student than they get in fees). So it actually makes sense to close down the science/engineering type of courses and keep the "history of art" or whatever which are lecture light and coursework heavy. Of course this doesn't really help the economy in the long run.
Putting the cynical hat on students also don't tend to vote for Tory governments either (if they bother too), so less students = better chance of them winning an election.
Disgraced but amazingly somehow back in power Minister Liam Fox -- who voted for Brexit -- came out and called British business leaders fat and lazy -- work wise -- and said they spend too much time on the golf course etc etc
This guy is just a tool. God knows why May gave him the International Trade job. How can he be expected to promote British businesses when he thinks they are all fat and lazy. I'm sure there is a question here for JCs PMQs twitter along these lines.
That's a tory govt. minister claiming that companies have a duty to the state.
It's always worrying when MPs start saying that people/companies have a duty to the state. That's Authoritarian rhetoric that goes down an unpleasant path because people and companies start to be thought of as tools not individuals. In reality the state should be working for people not the other way round.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....It's probably the one thing that everybody on this thread, be they remain, be they BREXIT, agree upon: Fox is corrupt and a liability.
I'm surprised May brought him in from the cold. He should have been exiled to Skegness
Skegness has enough problems without that cnut, send him back to the cnuts who voted for him in zummerzet.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....It's probably the one thing that everybody on this thread, be they remain, be they BREXIT, agree upon: Fox is corrupt and a liability.
I'm surprised May brought him in from the cold. He should have been exiled to Skegness
Skegness has enough problems without that cnut, send him back to the cnuts who voted for him in zummerzet.
Liam Fox will bring this country together...except for cider country..they know what they did!
welshhoppo wrote: Since when are referenda not democratic? They are literally how parliament operates. They all vote yes or no.
Exactly. You either agree with the bill or you don't. That's a binary choice.
The process of the formation of Acts of Parliament is significantly more complex than a referendum.
Obviously there is debate, readings, committees, amendments, counter amendments and so on, but in the end IMO, it boils down to a yes no decision.
It's the rest of the process that makes the difference.
For one very important example, you end up with a clearly defined piece of legislation, not a vague bundle of fears and wishes to be fulfilled by some kind of plan that no-one really has an idea what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To deviate from Brexit, what do people think about the new Education shake-up plans?
To me, streaming is not inherently evil since children have different aptitudes and interests, so it seems reasonable to facilitate them choosing a career path that best suits them.
The two issues are; firstly, advantages in early life give "middle class" children a leg-up on to the higher level path, thus potentially missing or blocking talented "lower class" children who could do better with the right tuition. Secondly, that the UK has always been very good at educating its "elites' but that doesn't mean everyone else should be left to dig ditches. On comparison, Germany has been good at education at all levels, thus developing a highly skilled workforce.
In this context I doubt the creation of more grammar-style schools will spur the development of good quality education for the children who fail their 11-plus exam.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/11 22:50:37
If they scrapped the 11 plus for an exam that was not so odd I might be more sympathetic. The number of people getting personal tutors when I was at primary to pass was stupid. They might do better in actually investing in the grammars already in existence, most of the ones in Kent are on the verge of falling down as they missed out on the funding the comprehensives were given as a priority a decade ago.
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
The boys grammar school close to me is not great, the girls is much better, however the comprehensives are also equally good and bad.
My children completed the 11 plus and all it did was cause them anxiety. It is a fact that children develop at different stages, some are late starters but this cut off potentially forces them onto another path. Children born in the middle of the year are also significantly younger and can struggle more than those who are older in their year. The 11 plus does not really take this into account.
I'm also not convinced that streamed schools do anything other than divert resources and re-enforce class divisions.
To me, this Grammar school focus is a sop to some middle class voters, and a distraction tool. I would much rather all schools were treated equally, and that children of all backgrounds and abilities were mixed, and resources were shared equally to give all children the education they need, and the social awareness and skills to interact with people outside of their normal circle.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
In this context I doubt the creation of more grammar-style schools will spur the development of good quality education for the children who fail their 11-plus exam.
A 2 tier education system is never a good thing for social equality. Poorer children already have less chance of academic achievement and Grammar schools can only make academic achievement less likely.
A world class education system should be an absolute priority as a high quality of education safeguards the entire countries future. Of course that costs money which could be better spent on worthless crap like Trident so uneven mediocrity is apparently good enough.
Isn't that exactly what we voted for? To end free movement?
I mean, you generally need to pay for a VISA to travel to anywhere not covered by free movement (I've had to do so for NA/Africa/Asia), so it makes sense that if we cease a freedom of movement clause with the EU, we'll need to pay some token VISA fee to visit it.
On the plus side (for Europe), it gives EU countries a lot more leeway to restrict access to the traditional English hooligans (no reason that Spain, for instance, couldn't just refuse VISA for anyone with a criminal conviction, kinda like the US does).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 07:54:44
A 2 tier education system is never a good thing for social equality. Poorer children already have less chance of academic achievement and Grammar schools can only make academic achievement less likely.
A world class education system should be an absolute priority as a high quality of education safeguards the entire countries future. Of course that costs money which could be better spent on worthless crap like Trident so uneven mediocrity is apparently good enough.
I agree. A 2 tier system is just a step on segregating children socially before in reality they have had a chance at getting a good go at life.
Firstly you can't determine a persons ability at the age of 11. Not only could any particular child's age range from near 10 - 12, so their development will be widely different; but also just generally a persons maturity and abilities changes once they hit teenage years (you wouldn't want to predict a world class footballer from their abilities at 11). Yes May has suggested that children get reviewed and those exceeding expectations could get bumped up, but this doesn't work. Something similar happened with my Mum when she was at school. She originally wasn't placed in a top class because of her assessment but as she developed she excelled in the classes she was in. When this was realised she was bumped up into the high tier classes. The problem was that she had missed so many lessons and was so far behind that she struggled and was then bumped back down again where she excelled yet again. The cycle was then repeated. No -one actually took the initiative at the school to realise that she couldn't do well in the top classes because she was trying to play catch up. It was the equivalent of taking a child out of school for 12 months and then expecting them to waltz straight back into it. The other thing to consider is that girls generally mature earlier than boys so you could potentially be making the boy/girl education difference greater.
We then have the issue of middle to upper class parents getting tutors in to ensure that their children get to grammar schools. Like for many parents in these classes it will become a 'status symbol' to have their children in grammar schools (I'm sure we all know some parents like this!). Even those that aren't like this will probably try and get their children into grammar schools. If they don't then the chances of them getting into the top competitive universities later is much less (so Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial, Durham, Edinburgh etc etc). However there will only be so many places at Grammar schools and that means those that aren't being tutored a much less likely to get into them; which means generally the less well paid that can't afford to keep up with tutoring costs (which is another thing I'd expect to skyrocket if this change is implemented). In essence apart from the extremely talented 11 year olds from a poor background the rest are going to effectively consigned to the education bin which will limit their options and career aspirations in the future.
The other disadvantage is that 'better' teachers will tend to drift to the better schools. But a better teacher is likely to be defined by which school they start at. If they start at a good school then results are likely to be better and the teacher will get better opportunities. If the teacher starts in a old, worn, inner city school then their ability to get good results will be limited. As such you'll end up with two tier teachers, one's that got a lucky break at the start (who can progress though good schools) and ones that didn't and whose career aspirations will be much more limited. Hence that could leave teachers in lower tier schools demoralised and likely to leave the profession. This then further compounds the issues that the non -grammars will find it harder to recruit staff, which means larger class sizes and likely even worse results.
However there are issues with the education system. The fact that the better schools are driving up house prices in the area is in effect forcing poorer students out of these better schools (especially primary schools) unless they just happened to live in the area before the school took off. So the question is how could this be solved. Well first the government could start putting money back into education. There has been a staggering decrease in funding for education over the last 7 years (conversely there has been an increase in spending on 65+'s). Teachers are leaving the system in quite high numbers both because pay isn't great and conditions are worsening. So I'd firstly increase pay maybe £25K of those in the first couple of years (probation) rising to minimum £30k for qualified, not probation, with step increases year on year to about £35k. Also I'd randomise where both teachers and children are allocated (within reason, so teachers in a local authority area, children within a certain number of miles). This then means that the school house price boom is limited because the idea that any school you go to should be roughly the same on a regional basis (there's no benefit form living anywhere in particular). I'd also be tempted to say that teachers can only work at one school for two years before they are reallocated to another within the region to ensure that some teachers don't become entrenched in worse or better schools because of a statistical random chance.
Isn't that exactly what we voted for? To end free movement?
I mean, you generally need to pay for a VISA to travel to anywhere not covered by free movement (I've had to do so for NA/Africa/Asia), so it makes sense that if we cease a freedom of movement clause with the EU, we'll need to pay some token VISA fee to visit it.
On the plus side (for Europe), it gives EU countries a lot more leeway to restrict access to the traditional English hooligans (no reason that Spain, for instance, couldn't just refuse VISA for anyone with a criminal conviction, kinda like the US does).
It's going to be interesting to see how this would apply for Ireland (which I can imagine there will be great resistance to having paid visa travel/work) and Scotland should they decide to leave the UK and re-join the EU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 08:08:34
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I've never paid for a visa to visit Japan. There is a mutual arrangement by which tourist visas valid for three or six months are pretty much automatically granted on application at the port of entry.
There's no reason why such arrangements could not be worked out between the UK and the EU.
and isn't blair in some gak over what he did/said in relation to that? 
