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:
There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.

Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?

Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.

If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.

Could the anti EU brigade please make up their minds about what they're angry about? As it seems their gripes change with the wind.

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

Magister wrote:
Could the anti EU brigade please make up their minds about what they're angry about? As it seems their gripes change with the wind.

What? When have I ever said I oppose Free Trade? Its the conditions and attached strings of integration that I oppose. I know exactly what I am angry about, if you're confused about what I'm angry about then it can only be because you're not listening.

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

I don't care. I. Don't. Want. That.

I don't like centralisation of Government in general. I don't like it in the UK, so why the hell would I like it in a massive European government of some 750 million people?

Magister wrote:

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

That's sounds great. One currency, one government, one reich. And you ask what objections people may have to being swallowed into this superstate, where the voice of the individual is ever diluted.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Magister wrote:
Could the anti EU brigade please make up their minds about what they're angry about? As it seems their gripes change with the wind.

What? When have I ever said I oppose Free Trade? Its the conditions and attached strings of integration that I oppose. I know exactly what I am angry about, if you're confused about what I'm angry about then it can only be because you're not listening.

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

I don't care. I. don't. want. that.

Aye.. I mean work with EU, trade. Science, and other areas of mutual cooperation such as space program and the next generation power supply like advanced nuclear power.

We not part of EU Army, but are a member of other aspects that benefit both parties.

Just stay our the political side of things and have limited free movement of peoples and work rights based upon a agreement that we agree to take those workers we need, and EU citizens in UK now have right to work, NHS, and such.

They just cannot vote and stand for elections etc.

This EU superstate that simultaneously must be blamed for submerging the individual and not being able to complete a trade agreement due to the actions of a few individuals in local councils in Belgium.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Magister wrote:

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

That's sounds great. One currency, one government, one reich. And you ask what objections people may have to being swallowed into this superstate, where the voice of the individual is ever diluted.

And now we're comparing the EU to the Nazis. Great.

Saw this on twitter...

Corbyn preaching at Glastonbury said we should build bridges not walls. He failed to mention we now have to build walls on our bridges.

Touche.

 Ketara wrote:
It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.

A very good point.

The EU are hoping to stir up enough public anger in the hope that we'll 'come to our senses.' Tusk admitted a few days ago he would like to see Britain reverse the referendum result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This EU superstate that simultaneously must be blamed for submerging the individual and not being able to complete a trade agreement due to the actions of a few individuals in local councils in Belgium.

You'll note that those councils in Belgium were 'persuaded' to change their minds about the trade deal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Saw this on twitter...

Corbyn preaching at Glastonbury said we should build bridges not walls. He failed to mention we now have to build walls on our bridges.

Spoiler:

Touche.

Yeah.. We have been forced to lay tons of concrete on bridged, those yellow things, the now ram proof road gates they can close and more.
X years ago we had Police in shirts n a few guns in police station.

Now its SAS helicopters and fully trained tactical Police units.

If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.

Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.

Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.

Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.

In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".

It appears I am not alone...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/moist-brexit-no-people-asked-vote-most-hated-word-english-language-1577997

Although I can't understand why anyone would dislike moist, it's one of my favourite words. Some of the best things are moist.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.

Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.

Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.

In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".

It appears I am not alone...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/moist-brexit-no-people-asked-vote-most-hated-word-english-language-1577997

Although I can't understand why anyone would dislike moist, it's one of my favourite words. Some of the best things are moist.

Like Kilkrazy said, you're putting the worst possible interpretation on it.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.

Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.

Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.

In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".

It appears I am not alone...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/moist-brexit-no-people-asked-vote-most-hated-word-english-language-1577997

Although I can't understand why anyone would dislike moist, it's one of my favourite words. Some of the best things are moist.

I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:

1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.

2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.

How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.

It's almost as if it's your dysfunctional domestic politics that are the root cause of the problems, not the EU, eh?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's almost as if it's your dysfunctional domestic politics that are the root cause of the problems, not the EU, eh?

Both the UK and the EU are dysfunctional.

That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

Alot more have been. However they are not able tp get the results through yet for everyone at once as there testing dozens, maybe hundreds of blocks and buildings right now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

very droll KK.

What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?

This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!

Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

very droll KK.

What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?

This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!

Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.

They have no choice once they find something too dangerous like that there is no choice when they find it to evacuate the building as if somthibg happens bad, then left some people to die, you are the one who is basically committed manslaughter.

Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.

That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.

 Ketara wrote:
Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.

That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.

True but if you know a building can go up like that in mere almost minutes from nothing to raging fire so hot fire crews can barely enter.
Emergency evac becomes required.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.

That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.

True but if you know a building can go up like that in mere almost minutes from nothing to raging fire so hot fire crews can barely enter.
Emergency evac becomes required.

24 hours notice gets at least some breathing space for the local authority to act on getting accommodation set up. If residents choose not to vacate you can then decide to strong arm them out.

I wonder if the decision to give little warning was in order to prevent a sit in or a disturbance. Given that housing is in relatively short supply I could see groups being concerned with where residents would be re-housed.

Which comes back to the initial council response to Grenfell and then back to local and national governemnt and its bureaucracy in how to handle such an event.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state

I don't care. I. Don't. Want. That.

I don't like centralisation of Government in general. I don't like it in the UK, so why the hell would I like it in a massive European government of some 750 million people?

The UK sports pretty much the worst statistics in terms of the disconnect between citizens and politicians, with thousands of voters per elected politician compared to, for instance, a couple hundred in France. The UK continually makes an effort to reduce our number of elected officials with much of Europe trying to do the opposite.

If the accessibility of political machinery to the individual voter is key to you, I think you're backing the wrong horse.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

very droll KK.

What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?

This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!

Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.

You're absolutely right that councils now find themselves at the receiving end of a decade or two of ignoring the problems that led to a disaster. However, it is unlikely that a day or two would make any difference. And in fact it hasn't. There haven't been any mass deadly tower fires since Grenfell.

What the council should have done was to inform residents that for the sake of safety and upgrades, the people would need to be moved out of their current dwellings to [a place] starting from [a time a day or two in the future], they would need to prepare by gathering [X stuff they needed] and that in the meantime, the families and their homes would be safeguarded by 24/7 security patrols.

Instead the people having been ignored for decades have been ignored again and treated as cattle. Unsurprisingly, the country is not amused.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.

To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.

In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.

very droll KK.

What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?

This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!

Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.

You're absolutely right that councils now find themselves at the receiving end of a decade or two of ignoring the problems that led to a disaster. However, it is unlikely that a day or two would make any difference. And in fact it hasn't. There haven't been any mass deadly tower fires since Grenfell.

What the council should have done was to inform residents that for the sake of safety and upgrades, the people would need to be moved out of their current dwellings to [a place] starting from [a time a day or two in the future], they would need to prepare by gathering [X stuff they needed] and that in the meantime, the families and their homes would be safeguarded by 24/7 security patrols.

Instead the people having been ignored for decades have been ignored again and treated as cattle. Unsurprisingly, the country is not amused.

One way would be easier.
Work your way down the block as you lock, and move people out.
You then block off access as the floors down securing them and patrol.

Working down you can secure a level then clear next and carry on..
Each time your locking down a area of building and working with a logical and steady basis.

You evacuate down as have replacement homes. Aslo as upper levels most dangerous it also deals with the fact that those in previous fire, most casualties where on higher levels too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.

Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?

Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.

If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.

That comes with the weight of the EU.

A common market (not just a FTA) is what makes the EU able to make those trade deals happen. The EU is able to sign free trade agreements on their own terms because it operates as a single economy on the world stage. The Canada FTA is lopsided in the EU favour because as the bigger player, it gets to tilt the scales in their favour.... which also works for Canada because access to such a big market is an opportunity in itself.

A simple free trade agreement doesn't cut it, as the EFTA experiment proved.

If Europe wants to be relevant on the world stage it needs to present a common front. Going solo no longer works when it's the USA, China or India on the other side of the table. Unless your negotiation plan revolves around saying "yes sir" a lot and getting a few token concessions while getting shafted in the key areas.

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.

Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?

Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.

If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.

That comes with the weight of the EU.

A common market (not just a FTA) is what makes the EU able to make those trade deals happen. The EU is able to sign free trade agreements on their own terms because it operates as a single economy on the world stage. The Canada FTA is lopsided in the EU favour because as the bigger player, it gets to tilt the scales in their favour.... which also works for Canada because access to such a big market is an opportunity in itself.

A simple free trade agreement doesn't cut it, as the EFTA experiment proved.

If Europe wants to be relevant on the world stage it needs to present a common front. Going solo no longer works when it's the USA, China or India on the other side of the table. Unless your negotiation plan revolves around saying "yes sir" a lot and getting a few token concessions while getting shafted in the key areas.

That's actually a deliciously ironic point: the EU helps protect national sovereignty in trade deals due to its clout.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:

1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.

2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.

How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.

Do you think it'd be worse than this?

I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.


On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.

Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.