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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No.4 ...er...
No.5 Profit! Trebles all round!!

I remain deeply pessimistic about Brexit, simply because it clearly is going to take a lot longer and be a lot more difficult than anyone thought, and probably the results are going to please less than half the population, and it will put a crimp on economic growth for up to 10 years to come that will feth up everyone who isn't rich.

The post-Brexit era will have to be become an absolutely banging success for the UK to claw back the lost ground of 20 years of stagnation, and that will take 10 years longer even if it happens.

The whole thing is such a huge feth-up by "everyone in charge."

Of course one way to stop immigration is to become a very undesirable place to live.

I always knew that Brexit wouldn't be easy, and would involve short term pain before we saw the benefits.

What I didn't count on was the sheer incompetence of this Tory government. Still, at my age, I should know better...

None the less, there is a flip side to your argument:

Imagine if Remain had won, then Cameron and Osborne would be vindicated and emboldened to push on with more austerity.

Staying the EU would still subject us to recession and downturns, and with the Italian banks about to collapse, in or out the EU makes no difference.

At least now, we've left a sinking ship. True, the liferaft is bobbing about in the middle of nowhere, but it's a start


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
Yes, that's absolutely great - If the EU reforms, lots and lots of people would most likely say "Aha! It's better now! I want to change my mind!"

And everyone has a different line in the sand on when circumstances have changed enough that we should stay. For a lot of people it'll be when the pound drops like a stone, and that's already happened. So if even people previously keen to leave begin to decide that remaining might be a better plan, doesn't that kill the idea that we should never have a second referendum stone dead?

But here's the thing. Hordes of Brexiters have been howling and screaming for months now that Brexit is Brexit is Brexit. So even if the EU changed its rules to "No free movement, massive free trade, anyone who speaks English as a first language gets a free gold plated unicorn" the Brexiters will still howl that there should be no second referendum. And the current government appears not to have the gumption to tell them to get lost. I wish it did. But then my line in the sand started out at the position that leaving the EU was a bad plan. I still think it was a bad plan. In 2 years time I'm likely to think that it wasn't just a bad plan, but utterly terrible.

If the EU implements meaningful reform,I'll change my name to dakka dakka by deed poll


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Eddie Hitler from Bottom is the leader of UKIP and Mini-Maggie has found God.

Christ just launch the Trident missiles at us now and save us the deathspiral.

What with Trump's finger on the red button and Farage moonlighting as a British ambassador, it does feel like a bad Monty Python sketch.

It's enough to turn a man to drink

If it's any consolation, we've hit rock bottom and I suppose we can only go up...

Breaking news Farage becomes leader of the SNP.

In another dimension. Nigel MacFarage is probably fighting to keep the SNP and Scotland in the EU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Mind you several countries across Europe face the prospect of going down a similar road to the UK, with 'far' right and Euro sceptic parties on the rise. With luck Brexit might not even be necessary, if it prompts enough reform, rolling back of EU powers and an end to "ever closer union" to placate Euro-sceptics. I want out of the EU because I do not like the path it is going down, and I perceive it to be impossible and unwilling to reform. But in the unlikely event it were to reform to my liking, then Brexit would no longer be necessary. The point would have been made.

Italian banks are ready to collapse, and Turkey is threatening to send in the refugees if Turkey/EU talks on Turkish EU membership don't resume again.

There might not be an EU to reform, the way things are going.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Imagine if Remain had won, then Cameron and Osborne would be vindicated and emboldened to push on with more austerity.

Staying the EU would still subject us to recession and downturns, and with the Italian banks about to collapse, in or out the EU makes no difference.

At least now, we've left a sinking ship. True, the liferaft is bobbing about in the middle of nowhere, but it's a start .

More accurate: You have left wobbling ship that will right itself and sank your own ship in the process.

No matter how bad the Tories are, the British public will take them over Corbyn any day of the week, that's how low Labour have sunk.

I nabbed this polling data from The Guardian, and it makes grim reading for Labour and non-Tory voters

State of the parties

Conservatives: 44% (up 2 points from ICM earlier this month)

Labour: 28% (no change)

Ukip: 12% (up 1)

Lib Dems: 7% (down 2)

Greens: 4% (up 1)

Conservative lead: 16 points (up 2)

ICM’s director Martin Boon urges caution about attributing the two-point increase in the Tory lead just to the autumn statement. But he says the Conservative score, 44%, is the highest the party has achieved since October 2009 and just one point off the highest it has ever hit in Guardian/ICM polling going back to 1992. The Tories have reached 45% on just five occasions, three of them just after John Major’s election victory in 1992 and two after the 2008 financial crash.

Boon also says the figures for Labour are “bleak”. The tables (pdf) show the Tories ahead of Labour amongst every social grade, even DEs (where the Tories are on 33% and Labour 32%). The Tories are also ahead amongst all age groups, apart from 18 to 24-year-olds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Imagine if Remain had won, then Cameron and Osborne would be vindicated and emboldened to push on with more austerity.

Staying the EU would still subject us to recession and downturns, and with the Italian banks about to collapse, in or out the EU makes no difference.

At least now, we've left a sinking ship. True, the liferaft is bobbing about in the middle of nowhere, but it's a start .

More accurate: You have left wobbling ship that will right itself and sank your own ship in the process.

We will always extend the hand of friendship to Finland, no matter what

Personally I think the EU isn't going to survive the decade, which is why I wanted out. If this Italian referendum goes against them on Sunday, and if Turkey carries through with their threat, it'll only speed up the process. It's just lurching from one crisis to the next and I don't see any hope for it.

To some degree that is a circular argument. The UK could have done a lot more to make the EU successful, instead we have rocked the boat by voting to pull out, and destabilised the situation. Admittedly this is because there are anti-EU people in other countries too.

That said, the UK experience might make other countries reluctant to pull out, and therefore more likely to work to make the EU a success.

The point to remember is that the EU is first and foremost a political institution, and therefore depends on peoples' will to make it a success, not on physical factors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To some degree that is a circular argument. The UK could have done a lot more to make the EU successful, instead we have rocked the boat by voting to pull out, and destabilised the situation. Admittedly this is because there are anti-EU people in other countries too.

That said, the UK experience might make other countries reluctant to pull out, and therefore more likely to work to make the EU a success.

The point to remember is that the EU is first and foremost a political institution, and therefore depends on peoples' will to make it a success, not on physical factors.

True, but when every 3 man Parish council in Estonia has a Veto, then it's hard to get things done at a reasonable speed.

7 years to do a trade deal with a nation (Canada) that bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. That's crazy and symptomatic of the EU's problems.

If it had stuck to being a loose trading alliance, then it would have been fine and I wouldn't have to listen to my elderly father bang on about Ted Heath all day!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Personally I think the EU isn't going to survive the decade, which is why I wanted out. If this Italian referendum goes against them on Sunday, and if Turkey carries through with their threat, it'll only speed up the process. It's just lurching from one crisis to the next and I don't see any hope for it.

Even Bismarck would struggle to fix the EU.

In all honesty, it's political union or death - that's the only way the EU will survive IMO, but ironically, pushing for more political union could also kill it.

The Euro was fatally flawed from day 1 and now it's an anchor dragging the EU to its doom.

Serven years to craft a highly complicated treaty between 29 countries is not bad at all. It's only bad if you assume that politics is much simpler than it is.

I also expect the EU as we know it to be gone in ten years.

Heck, I'll be surprised if it can stumble to the 2020s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Serven years to craft a highly complicated treaty between 29 countries is not bad at all. It's only bad if you assume that politics is much simpler than it is.

Bullgak, the whole idea of a EU trading block is that you only have to make deals with the one block. If you still have to make deals with the individual nations you might as well just get rid of the EU.

That was my point; without the EU it would've taken forever, instead it got done in 7 years.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

7 years to do a trade deal with a nation (Canada) that bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. That's crazy and symptomatic of the EU's problems.

Hardly. The UK has been trying to organise building a railway line for longer than that.

I don't think 7 years to negotiate, write, debate and pass legislation as complex and widely impacting as a trade agreement is that bad.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

7 years to do a trade deal with a nation (Canada) that bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. That's crazy and symptomatic of the EU's problems.

Hardly. The UK has been trying to organise building a railway line for longer than that.

I don't think 7 years to negotiate, write, debate and pass legislation as complex and widely impacting as a trade agreement is that bad.

Which railway line? We've got hundreds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my point; without the EU it would've taken forever, instead it got done in 7 years.

With every man and his dog having a veto, I'm bloody surprised it got done at all!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my point; without the EU it would've taken forever, instead it got done in 7 years.

To be fair, whilst it'd take forever, at least they could get up and running with the individual countries as they reach agreement. Assuming they aren't all trying to undercut/compete with each other and changing the deal.

Snooper's charter came into law today

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance#comment-88465124

I have no idea why the Welsh ambulance service needs access to people's data for fighting terrorism...

Anybody help me out there with an answer?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

7 years to do a trade deal with a nation (Canada) that bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. That's crazy and symptomatic of the EU's problems.

Hardly. The UK has been trying to organise building a railway line for longer than that.

I don't think 7 years to negotiate, write, debate and pass legislation as complex and widely impacting as a trade agreement is that bad.

Which railway line? We've got hundreds.

HS2.

And the majority of the lines we have were built back in the 1800s.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Snooper's charter came into law today

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance#comment-88465124

I have no idea why the Welsh ambulance service needs access to people's data for fighting terrorism...

Anybody help me out there with an answer?

Duh, so if a terrorist gets injured and calls in a 999 they know to ignore it.

Also, the EUs original role was trade based, they shouldn't go to the countries until the trade deal has been decided. Or each country who fancies trading with Canada could have gone through the process slowly, the serape countries in Europe are still competing against each other on the market after all.

Everybody is well aware of my opinion of the EU, so I don't say this lightly:

I agree with Donald Tusk

I am of course referring to Tusk's response to a letter sent to him by 80 dim witted Tory MPs.

Tusk is right, any uncertainty over the rights of British citizens in the EU and the rights of EU citizens in the UK, can only be cleared up once Article 50 is activated...

That 80 of Britain's finest fail to grasp this does not speak well of the quality of people we send to Westminster


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Snooper's charter came into law today

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance#comment-88465124

I have no idea why the Welsh ambulance service needs access to people's data for fighting terrorism...

Anybody help me out there with an answer?

Duh, so if a terrorist gets injured and calls in a 999 they know to ignore it.

Also, the EUs original role was trade based, they shouldn't go to the countries until the trade deal has been decided. Or each country who fancies trading with Canada could have gone through the process slowly, the serape countries in Europe are still competing against each other on the market after all.

Even if they knew a terrorist was injured, their Hippocratic oath means they still have to help


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

7 years to do a trade deal with a nation (Canada) that bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. That's crazy and symptomatic of the EU's problems.

Hardly. The UK has been trying to organise building a railway line for longer than that.

I don't think 7 years to negotiate, write, debate and pass legislation as complex and widely impacting as a trade agreement is that bad.

Which railway line? We've got hundreds.

HS2.

And the majority of the lines we have were built back in the 1800s.

We could start work on that tomorrow. It's the damn NIMBYs holding it up!

Seriously, I think you're right.

I'm backtracking on earlier comments

"Heathcliff, it's me, I'm Maggie, I've come home again...."

Kate Bush come out in support of Mini-Maggie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38144908

That snoopers charter, are they spying on everyone or just the ones that come up on their radar?

Everyone.

"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt"

Maybe Mrs May is a secret DoW player?!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That snoopers charter, are they spying on everyone or just the ones that come up on their radar?

IIRC it requires ISP to keep records of all the sites you visited and when for 12 months. The list of organisations can request this information at any time, without reason and without a warrant. They can't actually see what you *looked* at from what I remember without a court order though.

For those terrorists silly enough to go to "Isisterroristsrus.com" then that will be flagged. But your records of going to that infidelity site, wargaming site, huffington post or Mothercare, Lib Dems fund raising site are all going to be open to view by a large number of government departments including random ones like the welsh ambulance service. There is no oversight on this access.

This will open the door to all sorts of potential exploitation both from the government and individuals. Want to know how which of the population visit Labour/union websites, no problem. Want to know which students might turn up to a rally (again no problem). Does that husband in the welsh ambulance service want to check on what his wife is doing, no problem!. Yes some things might not be authorised but the large numbers of groups and people that have the potential to access the information is huge.

On top of this you have a very tempting target for hackers. A lot of phishing attacks are random hoping to score on chance that people might have accounts. What happens if they send more devious emails that highlight a potential 'issue' if it is specific to your web usage that they have hacked from the ISP; that will be a lot more difficult to spot.

It's a nightmare on so many levels and really most people should seriously consider a VPN just to protect themselves.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Personally I think the EU isn't going to survive the decade, which is why I wanted out. If this Italian referendum goes against them on Sunday, and if Turkey carries through with their threat, it'll only speed up the process. It's just lurching from one crisis to the next and I don't see any hope for it.

The Italian referendum has little to do with the EU.

It's basically allocating powers to the different governments (parliament vs regional govts) and streamlining the workings of institutions.

OTOH, want to have your cake and eat it is now an official negotiating position?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38134859

Essentially that is the circle that the UK government needs to try to square.

It's clear that access to the single market is extremely important to the UK economy, and the EU position is that this will require free movement of people, while controlling immigration was a key plank of the Leave campaign.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Snooper's charter came into law today

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance#comment-88465124

I have no idea why the Welsh ambulance service needs access to people's data for fighting terrorism...

Anybody help me out there with an answer?

Because cretins keep voting the fething tories into power.

I think they've basically allowed any group with any authority access, just in case. Who knows what they'll want it for in future. Maybe trying to bill smokers more for ambulance call-outs than non-smokers in a private healthcare system?

Then we'll have the council checking your history when applying for planning permission, or DWP checking up on you when you're claiming benefits, or whatever.

And it's all fething stupid; it's going to have zero impact on terrorism, anyone who wants to hide stuff already uses a VPN/darknet, and it's just going to cost us a fething fortune in data retention and security, and that's before we even consider things like abuse cases (like the police officers charged for using a helicopter to perve on people), hacking and leaks. Plus I'm not sure how they'll tie it to individuals; there's at least 4 people have regular access to my wifi.

Having all of your internet history available to essentially anyone could be utterly life destroying, even if you're not doing anything illegal/wrong/immoral.

Herzlos wrote:

Because cretins keep voting the fething tories authoritarians into power.

In case you've forgotten, Labour were equally bad with their introduction of RIPA, ID Cards and the precursor to this - the IMP. Hell, they even helped vote this monstrosity through. Unfortunately, clueless politicians of any ilk seem to be giving their ears to the very powerful security "services" lobbyists in government without realising the consequences.

Oh, and to add insult to injury, they've put in provisions to force encryption backdoors. That nice little entry is pretty much the government measuring the UK's IT industry up for a large coffin. Well, I've been putting off signup up to a Swiss based OpenVPN provider for a while now. Time to sign up...

Whilst the ID cards were another pointless exercise, the privacy invasion was on a different scale. RIPA had a narrower scope too (it required approval?).

Agreed, Labour haven't been great on that front either.

Magister wrote:
Everyone.

"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt"

Maybe Mrs May is a secret DoW player?!

Not quite.


Can't find the/a link now but you'll be relieved to know that MPs are exempt so their constituents can contact them safely.






edit :

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-only-amendment-politicians-have-submitted-to-controversial-bill-is-to-stop-mps-a6948211.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.politico.eu/blogs/spence-on-media/2016/11/murdoch-newspapers-registered-as-official-leave-campaigners/

A week before the U.K. referendum on EU membership, the newspaper group that owns Britain’s the Times and the Sun registered as an official Leave campaign group and spent nearly £100,000 pushing for Brexit, according to documents on election funding.

The figures from the Electoral Commission — which oversees U.K. elections — show that Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers Ltd registered as a Leave group on June 15, and spent £96,898 on campaigning, the Independent reported Tuesday. The referendum was held on June 23.

The Times newspaper backed Remain, but the Sun was a vocal proponent of Brexit, as was Murdoch, who, when asked why he didn’t like the EU, said: “That’s easy. When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

I've been watching the debate on the SNP's motion against Blair and the Iraq war.

Very heartening to see Alex Salmond stick the boot into Blair, and nauseating to see New Labour drones lining up to back Blair

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Essentially that is the circle that the UK government needs to try to square.

It's clear that access to the single market is extremely important to the UK economy, and the EU position is that this will require free movement of people, while controlling immigration was a key plank of the Leave campaign.

Well, the Leave camp had no plan for leaving the EU as their opinion was that this would be the obligation of pro-EU side. Therefore as they had no plan and were happy to leave it to others I think it is perfectly valid for them to propose that they remain in the single market and continue to have free movement!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

Oh, and to add insult to injury, they've put in provisions to force encryption backdoors. That nice little entry is pretty much the government measuring the UK's IT industry up for a large coffin. Well, I've been putting off signup up to a Swiss based OpenVPN provider for a while now. Time to sign up...

They can have their backdoor. Nothing stopping companies bricking it up!

fething Blair. Don't get me started.

And since we can count on the Supreme Court (one of that scumbags creations) ruling against triggering article 50 without parliaments approval, where do we go from here? This parliament is mostly for remain so there's little chance of them voting to trigger it. I would hope for another general election to clear them out. But, I'm sure there's still plenty of delaying tactics yet to be played.

But would it clear them out? Certainly a lot of pro-brexit folks would vote in UKIP and the like. But how many people are so pro-brexit, with that as their number one issue, that they'll vote on that basis?

How many people were "sort of anti-eu, but it's not really the most important thing in my life" who voted for Leave but would still come back to the Tories/Labour at a GE?