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.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.

So let me get this straight, you think I'm a fascist because - as was established much earlier in the thread - I opposes strong state intervention in society and especially oppose state intervention in the economy, I mentioned that our armed forces have in the past been willing to join in international operations such as those against ISIS (a genocidal religious group). in the Balkans (to bring a genocide to an end), Libya (where the government was about to slaughter its own people with tanks) and the first Iraq war (where we helped liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation), and because I would like to see parliament enact the result of a democratic vote?

Yeah, right old fascist I am. Can't stop, I need to grab my copy of mein kampf, slip some jack boots on and goose step my way down to the nearest Britain First rally. In the meantime I would suggest you reflect on just how utterly pants on head barmy your position has become and what it says about the quality of your arguments that you've now resorted to just chucking the word fascist at people that you disagree with.

No actually I don't think you are fascist nor do I think you want to be (or I hope not and I don't get that impression). I do however think you are espousing ideals that lead to fascism without realising it and when this is pointed out, rather than recognise the risks with what you are saying and what that means politically you try and make 'excuses' for why it should be like this. You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people. Using it as a means of 'powerful' political influence is not something we should pursue. The same goes with comments like it's OK for the Daily Fail to call people traitors and saboteurs because we shoud get on with Wrexit without any political opposition and so on. In history people didn't just get out of bed and decide they want to be fascists 'just because'. It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications. In all of this argument, this is what worries me the most. I ask again, look at what you are saying and really reflect on it don't just be defensive and live in denial because that is the most dangerous path of all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.

Yeah it's a pointless story really. It would be more worrying if they found it in armed operations at some later point. Every construction project has snagging issues, nothing is perfect, somebody had a Friday afternoon moment; the material chemically didn't set properly and so on. What would worry me more is that they have no real way of testing the landing/lift off of the high powered aircraft that they will use until seven years into the future.

 Compel wrote:
It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...

I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.

 Whirlwind wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.

So let me get this straight, you think I'm a fascist because - as was established much earlier in the thread - I opposes strong state intervention in society and especially oppose state intervention in the economy, I mentioned that our armed forces have in the past been willing to join in international operations such as those against ISIS (a genocidal religious group). in the Balkans (to bring a genocide to an end), Libya (where the government was about to slaughter its own people with tanks) and the first Iraq war (where we helped liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation), and because I would like to see parliament enact the result of a democratic vote?

Yeah, right old fascist I am. Can't stop, I need to grab my copy of mein kampf, slip some jack boots on and goose step my way down to the nearest Britain First rally. In the meantime I would suggest you reflect on just how utterly pants on head barmy your position has become and what it says about the quality of your arguments that you've now resorted to just chucking the word fascist at people that you disagree with.

No actually I don't think you are fascist nor do I think you want to be (or I hope not and I don't get that impression). I do however think you are espousing ideals that lead to fascism without realising it and when this is pointed out, rather than recognise the risks with what you are saying and what that means politically you try and make 'excuses' for why it should be like this. You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people. Using it as a means of 'powerful' political influence is not something we should pursue. The same goes with comments like it's OK for the Daily Fail to call people traitors and saboteurs because we shoud get on with Wrexit without any political opposition and so on. In history people didn't just get out of bed and decide they want to be fascists 'just because'. It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications. In all of this argument, this is what worries me the most. I ask again, look at what you are saying and really reflect on it don't just be defensive and live in denial because that is the most dangerous path of all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.

Yeah it's a pointless story really. It would be more worrying if they found it in armed operations at some later point. Every construction project has snagging issues, nothing is perfect, somebody had a Friday afternoon moment; the material chemically didn't set properly and so on. What would worry me more is that they have no real way of testing the landing/lift off of the high powered aircraft that they will use until seven years into the future.

For a ships its size and complexity, that's reflexively minor and easily handled.

It was somthing like 200 lites a hour. The ship weighs 70,000 tons. The fraction of flooding vs the vessels mass and water tight bulkheads is frankly not even worth calculating.

When the Titanic sank it was estimated to flooding at a rate of 400 tons per minute.

Or about 2000 times as fast by my maths.

As seen. This was not a serious problem.

Herzlos wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...

I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.

This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.

Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.

As long as the leak is simply a flawed mechanical part that can be replaced and isn’t a permanent problem with the design that causes it to be ongoing.

 Henry wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...

I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.

This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.

Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.

It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.

Nelson must be spinning in his grave.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...

I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.

This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.

Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.

It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.

Nelson must be spinning in his grave.

Maybe we can hook up his corpse to power the fleet?

But yes, this is an incredibly minor point for the ship. And is pretty much the whole reason we don't just launch expensive vessels without testing them.

 Henry wrote:


Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.

Damn it not even on the name. I was hoping to propose Leaky McLeak....

 Whirlwind wrote:
You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people.

If you're worried about our military going on some sort of WWII-esque rampage across the low countries, I wouldn't worry to much. The army would struggle to field a properly functioning and supported armoured division at the moment. We do have a wide range of capabilities that make us a very useful, very capable ally when needed though, whether it's fighting pirates, Islamic nutjobs, or out-of-control dictators. We don't intentionally set out to build and utilise our armed forces for the sole purpose of brokering influence around the world, it's more a beneficial side effect that they offer.

It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications

There's a massive leap that would need to take place between the rhetoric of today and fascism. To even compare the two is a very, very broad stretch of the imagination, though I did like the little jab you took at the end which basically implied that while you don't think I'm a fascist, you do think I'm in denial about saying fascist things, which of course is an entirely different thing... To you sir I would only suggest you stop throwing that word at people. I have fairly thick skin, but you're basically acusing me of being sympathetic to the viewpoint of a certain Austrian Corporal, which I think is a pretty rancid thing do to. If you don't like my viewpoints, that's fair enough, but don't pretend they have anything at all in common with fascism.

----

Now I think someone asked earlier about what I thought were the possible benefits of a "hard" brexit?

Let me preface this by saying I would prefer us to come to some kind of agreement with the EU. It doesn't have to be a super duper deal to end all deals, I was only expecting something modest on certain elements of mutual interest to both parties. But I'm of the opinion that no deal is better than a bad deal; a bad deal by my definition being one that retains many of the negative elements of being in the EU while sacrificing most of the opportunities that brexit presents (some of the more onerous/ridiculous regulations, having to pay money to the EU, the ongoing legal supremacy of the ECtHR, the unrestricted movement of people). A no deal in this regard is I think the better option. It's also worth noting that for May to be able to negotiate seriously she needs to have the ability to walk away at any moment. Even if she has no intention of actually exercising that option, she at least needs to have it in her back pocket and the EU needs to know that she does. Otherwise they're just going to curb stomp the government throughout the talks, something they've been doing to a degree so far.

Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability. I'm a firm believer that great challenges bring out the best in people. When we look across the atlantic and see what the Americans took from going to the moon, it was more than just the bragging rights to one of history's truly great achievements. The Apollo program brought out the best in America; the brightest and best minds, pulling together as a team and applied to a singular task that broke new ground and achieved something wonderous. It's why i find the attitude of some on the remain side so disheartening, because I'd prefer to see some of those bright minds applying themselves to the task at hand and helping the country to be the best that it possibly can be.

I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway. But even in cases where the EU does have a deal, such as the new deal with Japan, not that much dramatically changes at this initial stage either. That's largely due a clause in the WTO rules known as "Most Favoured Nation" (sometimes referred to as Most Preferred Nation). In essence what this means is that when two groups who are party to the WTO rules (such as the EU countries and Japan) strike a deal, they must offer the same tariff rates to all other WTO members. This also covers things such as intellectual property. In effect, when the EU negotiates a tariff reduction with one country it is negotiating the same deal with all countries, including the EU. Now granted there are a lot less obvious benefits derived from a deal beyond mere tariffs and plenty of stuff that isn't covered as such by WTO rules, but a good chunk of it is.

And this is where I'd like to see our innovative streak kick in, where i'd like to see our intellectual talent deployed to its fullest. One of the major problems that the EU has when negotiating trade deals, in common with the US, is the vast scope of the geography involved. The EU is not negotiating for a country, it's negotiating for a continent, which partly explains why the EU has no deal with China but New Zealand does. The reason we can't access the incredibly low cost solar panels that China has been pumping out of late is because of the EU's need to protect large solar power manufacturers in places like Germany. This is the perennial problem for the EU; the difficulty in achieveing concensus across such a broad range of interests. Here is where I think we not only have an advantage, but with a bit of ingenuity could set about breaking the mold of international trade. By keeping our deals more tightly focused and limited to a more narrow range of issues I believe we could set a new trend in what would effectively be mini-deals, designed to cover only those most pressing factors between ourselves and a partner nation. By the necessity and self imposed pressure of needing to get things moving I genuinely think we can radically reshape the nature of international trade negotiations between certain nations.

It's a tough ask, but like I said earlier I think we thrive under tough circumstances. Steel is after all forged in the heat of the crucible.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.

Nelson must be spinning in his grave.

To put it into context, 200 litres is the equivalent of your average bath tub. The rate of inflow is just over 3 litres a minute, or about enough to fill two kettles, but not a 6 pint jug. This coming from the seal around a massive propellor shaft. You could pump this amount of water out using a basic garden fish pond pump. The jets meanwhile are also in their trials. Not much point having planes ready to roll before the ship itself is ready to receive them.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability.

So a bit like sleeping rough because you don't want to pay rent or being subject to the house rules?

The UK joined the EU for some very good reasons, namely these:



That's per capita PPP GDP UK vs an average of the original EU6 (EU5 is the same minus Luxembourg, because it skews the numers somehow).



Here is just isolating the 3 bigger economies. The UK has more than recovered their ground vs France and Germany by embracing the new service economy (vs a more industrial-oriented France and Germany, the same is happening for example in the Netherlands, which of late has overperformed both countries as well). And that's been achieved by re-orienting their post-industrial economy towards the common market (with a bit of help from North Sea oil, to help with the transition, but that's a once in history event).

I am of the opinion, along with most experts, that it is the UK EU membership that has allowed them to outperform continental economies, adapting and reorienting faster and better. Leaving the house without a deal will not just be a massive short term shock, but also cripple future growth. It won't come to that, because even the most rabid leave backers in the government know that a bad deal is better than no deal, no matter their political rhetoric. We're talking about undoing 40 years of economic policy in 2 years. Even the UK proven record of adaptability won't come close to being enough.

That's why the UK has little leverage in the negotiations and will instead try to sell whatever concession they get as a massive victory. That's why David Davis talks tough in the local press but conveys a totally different message when sitting at the Brussels table. It's all about keeping face after whipping (part of) the public to a frenzy or, in PM May words "give me a deal I can sell to my people".

https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-brexit-european-council-pleads-for-brexit-deal-we-can-defend-to-our-people/

bouncingboredom wrote:
I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway.

But there are. There are literally dozens of agreements and treaties between the EU and China and the US. The UK would start at the ground level there. Trade deals are incremental, and build over previous work. There's no way the EU would have signed CETA if there weren't before a myriad of smaller sectorial agreements before that.

The EU has deals with most countries, and most countries have details with other countries. There is one country that trades only on WTO, Mauritania. It has a GDP of about £5billion. Or twice that of the company I work for. Not an excellent example to follow. What we are doing is running flat out towards a cliff shouting “It’s fine. I saw someone on TV jump off a cliff the other day. I’m sure we will be fine” and dismissing anyone pointing out that that person was an experienced BASE jumper, with a parachute and years of experience.

Herzlos wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...

I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.

All boats leak. The question is how much and why. The first is important for obvious reasons, and how much is acceptable depends on the type of boat. The second is important because there are many reasons. Some of which should be found in building, some of which are totally normal, some of which will get worse, some won’t and some will only become apparent once in use, which can’t be done without a crew. It’s like a central heating system. You would hope it would not leak, but sometimes it needs full pressurisation and a few heat/cool cycles the tank to empty a few times for any micro cracks in solder or imperfections in plumbers tape turn in to leaks.

No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,

and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.

A lot of Britain's food is grown in East Anglia, which is also very vunerable to sea level changes. This is where money should be spent, not white elephants like HS2.

All the trade deals in the world don't matter a damn if your car is floating down the street.

That great ball of fire in the sky does not give two hoots for trade deals

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

Only when it applies to their back yard. They couldn't give a stuff about anywhere they can't see.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.

Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

Only when it applies to their back yard. They couldn't give a stuff about anywhere they can't see.

I watch countryfile. There seems to be a lot of environmental protection going on in the UK.

..




So May and Bojo but no Corbyn huh ?

via

http://popbitch.com/2017/12/commons-as-muck/

According to Parliament’s figures, 2,040 individuals work at the House Of Commons (in both full and part-time capacities) – so that’s roughly 16 attempts per person to access pornography in September. Or, to put it another way, every single employee in the HoC trying to peek at porn every other day.

However, this makes the assumption that everyone working in the House Of Commons is equally horny – and we know from the volume of pornography allegedly on Damian Green’s computer that that simply cannot be possible. If everyone was perpetually as horny as Damian Green, even less would get done in Parliament.

So perhaps it’s more useful to divorce these numbers from people, and look at it in terms of time.

There are (famously) 30 days in September. 32,164 attempts to access of porngraphy across 30 days works out at an average of 1,072 attempts a day.

That’s 45 attempts an hour, or, if you prefer, one attempt made every 80 seconds.

.... welll.... have to admire the work ethic there eh ....

bouncingboredom wrote:
The jets meanwhile are also in their trials. Not much point having planes ready to roll before the ship itself is ready to receive them.

Yeah there is, the planes could have always operated from a land base but an aircraft carrier without aircraft isn't much more than a massive and very expensive target. At least they could use it for helicopters while they wait for the planes I guess.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.

Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.

You can by forcing their hand through trade deals. For example the EU trade deal with the Caribbean nations includes sustainable development policies (if you pollute, your goods will now incur in tariffs) as well as including renewable energy joint policies, funds for sustainable development, etc. The forthcoming treaty with MERCOSUR will go on a similar vein.

India and China want Western economies to open up, there's leverage there. And there'd be more of that if the US wasn't on an isolationist phase and the developed economies stick together on that. Fat chance of that happening though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,

That's one of the reasons that groups like the EU want to tackle climate change.

It's the Brexiteers who view all that sort of stuff as red tape and nonsense.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html

"Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."

Seen the air quality in Delhi ?

http://aqicn.org/city/delhi/

Rees-Mogg wants to roll us back to the Victorian era.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.

Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.

You can by forcing their hand through trade deals. For example the EU trade deal with the Caribbean nations includes sustainable development policies (if you pollute, your goods will now incur in tariffs) as well as including renewable energy joint policies, funds for sustainable development, etc. The forthcoming treaty with MERCOSUR will go on a similar vein.

India and China want Western economies to open up, there's leverage there. And there'd be more of that if the US wasn't on an isolationist phase and the developed economies stick together on that. Fat chance of that happening though.

It doesn't happen often but I mostly agree with this point, but with a few caveats.

A lot of Caribbean nations are small islands with small populations, so yeah, a 27 nation trading block with 500 million people, will get its own way.

China and India are a different kettle of fish. Both have populations of 1 billion people. both have a lot of resources. This we all know. China in particular is forging trade deals in Africa. It's not too fussy about environmental regulations. So yeah, extracting concession from China or India is a different ball game from extracting concessions from the Caribbean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,

That's one of the reasons that groups like the EU want to tackle climate change.

It's the Brexiteers who view all that sort of stuff as red tape and nonsense.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html

"Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."

Seen the air quality in Delhi ?

http://aqicn.org/city/delhi/

We're not going back to coal fires and steam trains

we had our smog crisis in London after the war. Brexit or no Brexit, nobody will put up with the bad old days of smog. The country has moved on too far.

It would be like asking people to swap their Coca Cola for budget Tesco Cola. Never going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rees-Mogg wants to roll us back to the Victorian era.

He's a vocal, backbench MP, who shows no interest in even a junior cabinet position. IMO, his influence is limited to a few news night appearances etc etc

Yet he's being touted as the most likely successor for Theresa May.

No-one will agree to these changes happening, but they will bit by bit as the wedge widens. Once all the protections are removed it'll be hard to resist.

China is bigger than us, but the EU still has some sway with them, pop 0.5bn Vs pop 1bn is always going to have more sway with a pop 0.005bn Vs pop 1bn.

To say that we don't care about our lack of influence because the EU doesn't have enough influence is to miss the point entirely.

It would be like asking people to swap their Coca Cola for budget Tesco Cola. Never going to happen.

Except with regards to things like trade deals and freedom of movement and the economy , top o' the head example.

Herzlos wrote:


China is bigger than us, but the EU still has some sway with them, pop 0.5bn Vs pop 1bn is always going to have more sway with a pop 0.005bn Vs pop 1bn.

Plus China is going there on their own, pollution is taking a toll on their citizens public health and people are more aware every day. They have introduced cap-and-trade emission programmes and are planning to phase out fossil fuel powered cars at around the same time as European countries.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/10/china-aims-to-ban-fossil-fuel-cars/

Right now the spotlight is on India and the US going increasingly rogue.

Leave the EU and the government will rip up environmental agreements and standards the second the right wing press start screaming. Just look at the recent fuss they made over hair dryers and vacuum cleaners. The EU have been far more forward thinking and ambitious with targets and aims to combat climate change than any of the other large industrialised nations.

Whilst this clearly started as an attempt at deflection from a Brexit supporter who had run out of economic arguments, it’s hust another reason we should be in the EU.

 reds8n wrote:
..

Spoiler:

So May and Bojo but no Corbyn huh ?

That ... gies me the boak.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
..

Spoiler:

So May and Bojo but no Corbyn huh ?

That ... gies me the boak.

Popular searches provided by Pornhub.
Who goes searching for septagenarian wotsits with a toupee in order to bang one out?

Man, I haven't heard that phrase in YEARS !



TBH I don't think either of those visions look especially great.

I don't think emotionless robots would be bothered by protests, and I'm not sure about them having to apply for jobs or clock in/out like that either.

Whilst the Tory visions of giant driverless police cars, backed up by flying death machines of which it takes 5 of them to deliver 1 package -- whilst a lone man desperately tries to 3d print out a weapon to try and kill the human traitor who sold us out to the robots, forcing the rest of us to live in some matrix style VR looks especially appealing either.

Frankly I'm not sure making your report look like one of those " really makes you think" type of memes which are, inevitably, produced by morons, and recycled endlessly on twitter et al is a good idea either.

TBF it is Xmas so one cannot blame them too much for phoning it in and then slacking off early to go on the piss eh ?