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.
Getting private transport emission free is arguably more important than public transport on account of relative carbon footprint. Plus, it's likely be very expensive to electrify the entire rail network. Finally, for all I know Diesel may in fact be the most efficient option for trains, given the electricity needs to be provided from somewhere.
Electric trains are about 15% more efficient than direct diesel equivalent, even if you burnt the diesel to generate the power, because you're not lugging the mass of the engines and fuel everywhere you go. They are also future-proof, as electricity can be generated from any means, rather than being tied into hydrocarbon fuels (at best bio-diesel, which could reduce the carbon footprint, but not NOx and particulate emissions). The decision seems to partly have been taken because the new diesel trains will be "hybrid" and that's a popular catchphrase that politicians (sort of) understand. Fully electric vehicles are superior (from an environmental point of view), but that's impractical with cars at the moment*, so hybrids are a good option. That logic does not hold true for railways, where electrification is eminently practical; yes, there is an infrastructure cost, but it's a proven technology. Most of the rest of Europe electrified the bulk of their network decades ago.
I absolutely support more charging infrastructure for private vehicles, but it shouldn't be an either/or.
* I'm aware that things are improving and need more investment to improve further, but owning an electric car still has hassles, particularly for long-distance travel.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I’ve just found out that a lot of the management in the Belfast City Council waste management office are off on ‘stress leave’. That’s usually a prerequisite to them either leaving or getting sacked. Hopefully that place will finally turn itself around.
For anybody that's interested, and if you're not, why not?
There was an important vote in The Commons last night regarding Scotland.
Now, under the 1998 Scotland Act, everything that is not reserved to Westminster goes to the Scottish Parliament, and there's a similar act for Welsh devolution.
Now, a lot of powers coming back from Brussels were supposed to be heading to Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Scottish Tory MPs vowed to fight to the last, man the barricades, defy the PM etc etc to get these powers for Scotland
And then last night they voted with the government to retain these new powers...so much for tough talk...
Feth me, and forget my pro-Scottish Indy stance for a minute here, but what do the Tories think this will do for preserving the UK or stopping the SNP?
What an incompetent, short-sighted, bunch of fething idiots.
And yet, come the next GE, millions of people will vote for them...
Hey, I'm happy that they have handed the SNP such a gift, but God Almighty, if they can't even do the basics, no wonder the NHS is crumbling, crime is increasing, and Brexit negotiations are looking wobbly...
"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
I think it's a mix of incompetence and arrogance; the party is at its smallest and oldest for a long time, the pool of talent is crap, and only seems to draw folk after power.
For all her talk, Davidson was never going to defy Westminster orders. Doing that would require a spine, and I'm sure she wants to move up to the 'big leagues'.
Hopefull this will spark another demand for independence but I think everyone is so burnt out they'll get away with it again.
I think it's a mix of incompetence and arrogance; the party is at its smallest and oldest for a long time, the pool of talent is crap, and only seems to draw folk after power.
For all her talk, Davidson was never going to defy Westminster orders. Doing that would require a spine, and I'm sure she wants to move up to the 'big leagues'.
Hopefull this will spark another demand for independence but I think everyone is so burnt out they'll get away with it again.
Ruth Davidson isn an MSP and didn't have a vote last night.
Ruth Davidson isn an MSP and didn't have a vote last night.
She's also the leader of the Scottish Tory party, and the one promising to make sure her MP's voted in Scotlands interests even if that's against Westminster.
As far as I'm aware, she's the only one that was making a big deal about Scottish Tory MP's standing up for their own country, everyone else assumed they'd just do what they were told.
I think it's a mix of incompetence and arrogance; the party is at its smallest and oldest for a long time, the pool of talent is crap, and only seems to draw folk after power.
For all her talk, Davidson was never going to defy Westminster orders. Doing that would require a spine, and I'm sure she wants to move up to the 'big leagues'.
Hopefull this will spark another demand for independence but I think everyone is so burnt out they'll get away with it again.
I find it absolutely astonishing that the Conservative and Unionist Party would actively try and sabotage the Union they profess to love.
You get to a certain age, you live to see everything.
I think it's a mix of incompetence and arrogance; the party is at its smallest and oldest for a long time, the pool of talent is crap, and only seems to draw folk after power.
For all her talk, Davidson was never going to defy Westminster orders. Doing that would require a spine, and I'm sure she wants to move up to the 'big leagues'.
Hopefull this will spark another demand for independence but I think everyone is so burnt out they'll get away with it again.
Ruth Davidson isn an MSP and didn't have a vote last night.
True, but with her 13 Tory MPs, which she claims to 'control' she is arguably in an even stronger position than the DUP with regards to balance of power.
The DUP got 1 billion for Northern Ireland.
Ruth Davidson got £0.00 for Scotland.
Davidson, in all her years, has yet to utter a single statement that is even remotely Conservative.
She is as much a Conservative as Atlee was...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Which in all honesty was the primary reason I voted remain.
Just didn't trust our politicians to do it very well, when they can't handle the things they're already doing very well.
That and by staying in the EU we can annoy the rest of the continent.
What?? I thought you were the cut me open, I'll bleed Brexit type?
I honestly thought you were pro-Brexit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 14:05:45
"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
The BBC wrote:
Payments stopped to former Carillion directors Payments to former Carillion directors have been stopped from the date of the company’s liquidation, says the Cabinet Office.
Minister Oliver Dowden told BBC Radio 4’s World At One:
I can confirm that any payments to directors beyond liquidation date have been stopped. So these people aren’t going to be paid.
The move includes severance payments. A spokesman for the Insolvency Service said:
Any bonus payment to directors, beyond the liquidation date, have been stopped and this includes the severance payments which were being paid to some senior executives who left the company.
Whirlwind wrote:You are moving the goal posts. We are referring as to how you evaluate and determine what you can include in a contract.
Erm, no. As anyone that cares to check back will see I was talking about the awarding of contracts, which is what you replied to. So unlucky, another failed attempt to try and discredit someone because they pointed out something inconvenient to you. And then you wonder why this thread is becoming an echo chamber.
I did that's why I stated what I did and to quote your own wording:-
The authorising bodies that have given Carillion some of their contracts are similarly limited in the number of factors that can be considered when making their deliberations, which helps explain why Carillion have been able to keep winning contracts despite their precarious position.
You then moved that onto how they get advertised in that and the communication of those bids
This extends to such minuate as the nature of electronic communications (literally the government can be sued in some circumstances for using communication methods deemed to exclude certain potential bidders).
You are confusing two points and moving the goal posts in the discussion. I am quite happy to talk about the process that must be undertaken for the types of contracts and how they are advertised and how people can respond, but that was never the original point of the discussion. This latter point is about how procurement processes are advertised (and as pointed out these are subject to the value and type of the procurement you are undertaking). However we were talking about in awarding of contracts and what factors can be considered as part of those deliberations. In that case that is entirely in control of the awarding body. They can decide the evaluation criteria and as long as it isn't discriminatory (e.g. racist) or requires illegal actions (e.g. illegal disposal of waste) then you can set both the contract criteria and the awarding criteria as the awarding body see fit. It will be an echo chamber when you close your eyes, ears and mind and can only see that your arguments are being pointed out as incorrect.
The government thinks no such thing. If you actually listen to what they're saying they're trying to get the best deal they can, but they no full well that they won't get an equivalent deal to Norway unless they meet the same obligations.
To go back to the same guardian article previously linked
"However, in Brussels it is the mood music coming from London that is causing concern ahead of talks on the transition period that will come once the European council has adopted negotiating directives on 29 February.
Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, suggested in a recent cabinet meeting that the UK would operate on three levels post-Brexit with the EU, with some sectors being entirely free from Brussels regulation while others were fully converged to allow frictionless trade. In a third “basket” of sectors, the two sides could share the same goals but “achieve them through different means”. One senior EU official said: “It’s what we always thought the UK would be going for and that’s why we have been quite clear that we don’t think that it is on.”"
Ergo they are simply not listening to the realities of the situation. My prediction is that the last 12 months will be repeated. We will get endless tripe of trying to put a square peg into a round hole until at the last minute they concede on pretty much anything major because they simply have no choice.
You don't seem to be listening. The people involved in the financial sector in the EU are not expecting any major movements, not the day after Brexit or the month after Brexit or the decade after Brexit. They're quite happy with the way things run right now (because everyone wins and makes lots of money).
I'll point you in the direction of this article and let it sink in...(Dec 2017)
Indeed, since the UK voted to leave the EU, the EBA has observed that European banks have significantly reduced their exposure to the UK. In the 12 months starting from June 2016, lenders from other EU-member countries slashed their assets tied to the UK from €1.94 trillion to €1.59 trillion, while their liabilities also shrunk during the same period, from €1.67 trillion to €1.34 trillion. Of particular note is the 35-percent reduction in banks’ holdings of derivatives with exposure to the UK by a hefty 35 percent, marking the biggest asset-class reduction....
....As far as staffing is concerned, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) expects around 75,000 banking and insurance jobs in the UK to be lost to the EU should a trade deal not materialise, with the regulator’s CEO, Sam Woods, forecasting around 10,000 UK-based jobs potentially on the chopping block on “day one” of Brexit. Think-tank Bruegel, meanwhile, projects a loss of 10,000 banking jobs and 20,000 financial-services roles as clients could withdraw a total of $2.1 trillion worth of assets from the country. HSBC has been among the most vocal institutions regarding potential migrations out of London, with CEO Stuart Gulliver having stated his intentions earlier in the year to relocate around 1,000 jobs from London to Paris—a number that represents the bank’s estimate of the proportion of its workforce in London that is involved with products covered by EU legislation. Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and BNP Paribas have made similar pronouncements in recent times....
...Some of the biggest American banks are also reportedly formulating “stop gap” solutions as a way to potentially prevent jobs leaving London before new staff are added to their European operations. Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Bank of America have been reported to be aiming to use London branches of their EU subsidiaries to ensure business continuity prior to the completion of their new headquarters on the continent. While this may prove to provide temporary relief for London-based staff, however, there is little guarantee that their jobs will be secure in the long run....
The only method that would stop the damage is gaining those passporting rights. France will likely resist this extremely hard without a very hefty payout (as it has the most to benefit).
You, like seemingly some of the more bombastic EU politicians, just do not seem to understand the scale of the knock on effects to the Eurozone from a bad deal. Thankfully most of the people that matter do and they've already begun leaning on their respective governments. The EU is no more a unified front than I am a trained neuro-surgeon. The signs of this are becoming more apparent by the day. The fact that you choose to ignore these because you're busy shouting "WREXIT" in every other comment is irrelevant.
I think it's more the realities that they realise that the UK only accounts for 16% of the exports from the Eurozone, which whilst it might have an impact with some tariffs and some areas is nowhere near the impact that it would have on the UK which exports 50% of its goods to the Eurozone. The farming industry will have little to worry as they will still have a CAP whereas its largely uncertain what farmers will get post the early 2020s. If they get nothing or minimal amounts then they may find just growing wild flowers is much more lucrative. The UK government will also be acutely aware that huge increases on tariffs on imports of food will drive inflation on these goods (as 50% of our food comes from abroad and a lot from the EU) and with the number of people on very low wages will have a significant impact on their lives (assuming any Tories in government actually care). Brexit does indeed mean Wrexit...
In 2019 much more stringent controls on tax in terms of transparency will come into force. It should not be a surprise that a lot of people bank rolling the leave campaign are set to not 'benefit' from such rules.
Ah yes, government tax regulation. How many centuries have governments been trying to clamp down on avoidance? How has that worked out? And when the president of the organisation attempting it is notorious for being one of the biggest corporate handshakers and tax avoidance artists in the business, you really think there's going to be a massive clampdown?
I think any clampdown is better than none. I don't expect the world to change in a day (except for the UK which apparently wants to go back to September 1954 and stay there permanently.
"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 don't see how it can't; the company has ceased trading and is liquidation, so all outgoings (including wages and bonus') stop.
The directors could make a claim for the money owed as debtors, but (AIUI) would be at the back of the queue.
Hopefully, the iquidator will direct the £29m in cash to the smaller companies who risk collapse from the unpaid debt.
It largely depends on how they actioned it. And legally what they are entitled to. I suppose if they have managed to legally place themselves at the top for settling debts then they will get the first share of any distribution of assets. Although they may not be paid in the traditional sense, the company may owe them a debt that they have to pay off first.
This news also seems to have passed by and worth flagging with regards the NHS. 1/10 nurses are now leaving the NHS for better climates. In fact more nurses are leaving than joining the NHS. I would guess this is also having an impact on the service and the problems we are seeing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42653542
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I don't see how it can't; the company has ceased trading and is liquidation, so all outgoings (including wages and bonus') stop.
The directors could make a claim for the money owed as debtors, but (AIUI) would be at the back of the queue.
Hopefully, the iquidator will direct the £29m in cash to the smaller companies who risk collapse from the unpaid debt.
Perhaps they 'banked' their payments as some form of secured credit to the company?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 19:46:41
"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
Staff pay is usually near the front of the queue for paying by liquidated companies, but the directors who flew the company into the sewage plant while distributing record dividends to shareholders and bonuses to themselves by the mechanism of cheating contractors and the pension fund, and arranged massive pay for themselves for up to a year after having left the company, are frankly lucky not to be strung up to lampposts, yet alone think they are going to seen any more millions.
Filth.
I am not normally a person to approve of rescinding the rule of law, but when the rule of law overwhelming favours the power elite at the expense of the ordinary people, something eventually is going to change.
jouso wrote:Banking services covered by MIFID/MIFIR, CRDIV/CRR, consumer financial products, etc. aren't covered.
I didn't say they were, I said the EU's financial regulators seem to think granting passporting rights to non-EU entities is not a problem. This is important predominantly because it makes it difficult for EU politicians to argue otherwise later down the line.
Because everyone outside the torysphere now bets on a really soft Brexit, with UK paying for market access. Job loss will be proportional to degree of access.
Aside from the transition period I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the UK to make payments to the EU. An idea was muted recently that the City might be prepared to make contributions if the government agreed to pay for market access, something which both the government and then City reps themselves almost immediately shot down.
Commissioning impact reports is just good practice (i.e. exactly the opposite of what David Davis did, or what Nicola Sturgeon just did, or what the EU published long time ago).
These were not impact reports in the dry, financial sense. These were short, shiny, infographic laden sales pitches designed to catch politicians eyes and drop not so subtle hints.
----------
Whirlwind wrote:You are confusing two points and moving the goal posts in the discussion.
No, I mentioned communications as in when people communicate with one another, such as when submitting bid documents. There are rules in place to prevent government from doing things like using an unusual format or software type that would inhibit certain companies (normally smaller ones) from fairly competing for a contract, which was used an example to rectify your mistaken opinion that government bodies are basically free to discrimate almost as much as they like. At no point have I deviated from the concept of the bidding process and at no point have I talked about advertising in anyway, shape or form, which therefore makes a good chunk of your argument a basic strawman.
Ergo they are simply not listening to the realities of the situation. My prediction is that the last 12 months will be repeated. We will get endless tripe of trying to put a square peg into a round hole until at the last minute they concede on pretty much anything major because they simply have no choice.
You can't even grasp the meaning of the quote that you brought up, so I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to explain it. You don't seem to understand that companies in this country, if they're going to export to the EU, can freely choose to align their product with EU standards, in the same way that Coca-Cola for example has to make sure its products sold in the EU comply with EU law. You basically took that quote from the Guardian and tried to turn it into something it isn't, yet another example of a strawman. At the rate you're collecting these you'll soon be able to shoot a Wicker Man remake.
I'll point you in the direction of this article and let it sink in...To quote a few points:-
"As far as staffing is concerned, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) expects around 75,000 banking and insurance jobs in the UK to be lost to the EU should a trade deal not materialise... HSBC has been among the most vocal institutions regarding potential migrations out of London, with CEO Stuart Gulliver having stated his intentions earlier in the year to relocate around 1,000 jobs from London to Paris—a number that represents the bank’s estimate of the proportion of its workforce in London that is involved with products covered by EU legislation"
The only method that would stop the damage is gaining those passporting rights. France will likely resist this extremely hard without a very hefty payout (as it has the most to benefit).
"Deutsche Bank plans to move hundreds of staff out of London as a result of Brexit rather than the thousands first feared, a senior executive has said. It is the latest global lender to roll back on suggestions of an exodus from the City caused by Britain's departure from the European Union... Mr Hoops said a few senior traders would relocate to Frankfurt as well as risk managers and legal and support staff. But the lion's share of traders will remain in London," he added... Last October, Sergio Ermotti, the head of Swiss banking giant UBS, said its "worst case scenario" of having to shift 1,000 jobs out of London due to Brexit was looking "more and more unlikely"... A few days later, HSBC said that its transfer of employees from London to Paris may be less than the 1,000 previously thought."
I think it's more the realities that they realise that the UK only accounts for 16% of the exports from the Eurozone, which whilst it might have an impact with some tariffs and some areas is nowhere near the impact that it would have on the UK which exports 50% of its goods to the Eurozone.
We only export 43% to the EU, and that's been falling in the long run which is precisely why we'll benefit from leaving the EU's protectionist bloc. You also don't seem to grasp just how much damage it would do to the Eurozone alone if (hypothetically) just the German, French and Irish exports to the UK were severely hampered, especially in the case of Germany as the heart of the Eurozone. This is currency union that is pumping out 60 billion Euros worth of quantative easing per month to try and keep itself afloat and drag it out of the one of the worst economic crises since the great depression. Luckily more sensible people across the channel seem to understand this, which is why a good deal for all is likely to be the outcome.
The farming industry will have little to worry as they will still have a CAP
Let's just hope one of the biggest net contributors to the EU doesn't leave soon then, forcing the EU to implement massive budget cuts. Oh wait....
"We estimate that Brexit will leave a permanent shortfall of €10.2 billion per year in the EU budget...Therefore, large spending categories like CAP are likely to come under pressure if the EU budget is cut" [Directorate-General for Internal Policies advice to the Agricultural committee]
.
The UK government will also be acutely aware that huge increases on tariffs on imports of food will drive inflation on these goods (as 50% of our food comes from abroad and a lot from the EU) and with the number of people on very low wages will have a significant impact on their lives (assuming any Tories in government actually care). Brexit does indeed mean Wrexit...
If only the government had some method of preventing this at its disposal, like, I dunno, reducing tariff rates on imported food, especially stuff that we don't grow in the UK or that grows only seasonally here, which would allow exporters from countries than produce stuff cheaper than in the EU to sell us even cheaper food? "Wrexit" means only one thing; that you do not understand or just willfully refuse to acknowledge the many advantages to leaving the EU, and are so narrow minded about the possibilities that you're bordering on Stockholm Syndrome.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
I'm positive any deal we have for financial market access will involve a payment. I wouldn't be surprised if that payment is more than we currently pay post rebate.
jouso wrote:Banking services covered by MIFID/MIFIR, CRDIV/CRR, consumer financial products, etc. aren't covered.
I didn't say they were, I said the EU's financial regulators seem to think granting passporting rights to non-EU entities is not a problem. This is important predominantly because it makes it difficult for EU politicians to argue otherwise later down the line.
It's not a problem in the same way it is not a problem from the UK to open their waters to fishing fleets from all over the world.
Why would they? Or, more to the point, in exchange for what?
Because everyone outside the torysphere now bets on a really soft Brexit, with UK paying for market access. Job loss will be proportional to degree of access.
Aside from the transition period I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the UK to make payments to the EU. An idea was muted recently that the City might be prepared to make contributions if the government agreed to pay for market access, something which both the government and then City reps themselves almost immediately shot down.
Then, we're back to this simple graphic.
No payment means Canada (meaning no free flow of services).
Commissioning impact reports is just good practice (i.e. exactly the opposite of what David Davis did, or what Nicola Sturgeon just did, or what the EU published long time ago).
These were not impact reports in the dry, financial sense. These were short, shiny, infographic laden sales pitches designed to catch politicians eyes and drop not so subtle hints.
That's not how they work. Those free-to-download brochures aren't commissioned by anyone other than Deloitte themselves. They're short, shiny, infographic laden sales pitches because they're selling your company just how well informed they are about the legal and economic changing scenarios so of course you should absolutely give them a pile of money to solve your company problems in compliance, strategy, etc.
jouso wrote:Banking services covered by MIFID/MIFIR, CRDIV/CRR, consumer financial products, etc. aren't covered.
I didn't say they were, I said the EU's financial regulators seem to think granting passporting rights to non-EU entities is not a problem. This is important predominantly because it makes it difficult for EU politicians to argue otherwise later down the line.
It's not a problem in the same way it is not a problem from the UK to open their waters to fishing fleets from all over the world.
Why would they? Or, more to the point, in exchange for what?
Yeah. Banking is good source of jobs. UK banks already have moved jobs to Europe due to brexit. They obviously want more. More money, more jobs. UK needs to give something hefty back or there's multiple countries who would be happy to get as many jobs from UK banks as possible. All? No. But even 30% would be pretty nice deal. Rest can stay in UK without banking passport.
Banking is, and has been for a long time, a major industry for the uk. Lloyds has been running for 350 years. Even a 1% loss could damage our economy, and one of the reasons why London has grown in current years is because of passporting. International banks and other organisations using the UK as an EU base, with the benefits of our regulations and stability with access to the rest of the EU.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/18 17:32:29
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
The eccentric soap opera that is UKIP continues - an everyday story of ordinary racist folk going about their lives.
I do like "I have seen people die, I have seen people blown up, I have seen people shot. Even the Taliban doesn’t quite prepare you for Ukip, though.".
That's a pretty big majority for Remain, if accurate. Seems to be an increase in likelihood of a 2nd referendum. I wonder if this was the long game from the Tories, somehow (partically because I don't believe they are stupid enough for the last 18 months behaviour to be genuine)
No, I mentioned communications as in when people communicate with one another, such as when submitting bid documents. There are rules in place to prevent government from doing things like using an unusual format or software type that would inhibit certain companies (normally smaller ones) from fairly competing for a contract, which was used an example to rectify your mistaken opinion that government bodies are basically free to discrimate almost as much as they like. At no point have I deviated from the concept of the bidding process and at no point have I talked about advertising in anyway, shape or form, which therefore makes a good chunk of your argument a basic strawman.
I've already quoted your own wording and how you've moved to different topics so I will quote again your original statement:-
"The authorising bodies that have given Carillion some of their contracts are similarly limited in the number of factors that can be considered when making their deliberations, which helps explain why Carillion have been able to keep winning contracts despite their precarious position."
This is just wrong. There is nothing stopping organisations contracting out work to require people to use mail, floppy discs, stone tablets and so forth. The method included in contracts is generally appropriate to the contract in hand (else it adds an unnecessary cost). The evaluation method, as long as it is not asking a company to break the law (flytip their waste for example) is entirely up to contracting body. In the end the entire point of an evaluation process is discriminatory because you are trying to find the company that provides the highest quality service for the most effective cost. Yes some methods do put in requirements that effectively exclude small businesses (you don't want your local scrap person running a multimillion £ waste energy from waste facility). What you can't do is evaluate proposals using different types of criteria during the process to favour one or another bidder - so hence using the above example if you daftly set the criteria that the scrap person does win then you have to either award it to them or withdraw the whole process. However the original criteria you are free to set as you like within the remits of not asking people to act illegally. To be honest sometimes I do have to check what you are saying to challenge it. But in this case I know you are speaking garbage...
You can't even grasp the meaning of the quote that you brought up, so I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to explain it. You don't seem to understand that companies in this country, if they're going to export to the EU, can freely choose to align their product with EU standards, in the same way that Coca-Cola for example has to make sure its products sold in the EU comply with EU law. You basically took that quote from the Guardian and tried to turn it into something it isn't, yet another example of a strawman. At the rate you're collecting these you'll soon be able to shoot a Wicker Man remake.
Throwing insults about as a way of distracting from the point is just away of admitting you have no real argument put forward. No one is denying that people won't still be able to trade. They could be hit twice though, once for complying with the EU market requirements (which might be freater than the UKs) and secondly for any additional tariffs. That makes it more difficult to trade and as they are less competitive.
"Deutsche Bank plans to move hundreds of staff out of London as a result of Brexit rather than the thousands first feared, a senior executive has said. It is the latest global lender to roll back on suggestions of an exodus from the City caused by Britain's departure from the European Union... Mr Hoops said a few senior traders would relocate to Frankfurt as well as risk managers and legal and support staff. But the lion's share of traders will remain in London," he added... Last October, Sergio Ermotti, the head of Swiss banking giant UBS, said its "worst case scenario" of having to shift 1,000 jobs out of London due to Brexit was looking "more and more unlikely"... A few days later, HSBC said that its transfer of employees from London to Paris may be less than the 1,000 previously thought."
Hang on you want to compare an media outlet dedicated to the news specifically in the banking world to a mass media corporation owned by Murdoch who wants to the see the UK leave the EU? I am sure know which one I think I'd put more faith in. I'll have to remind myself next time I want to read a scientific journal I instead must read the Daily Fail the next day because they sure will be able to make more sense on the issue.
We only export 43% to the EU, and that's been falling in the long run which is precisely why we'll benefit from leaving the EU's protectionist bloc.
Less than you would think. Germany's exports and imports with regards the UK are decreasing relatively compared to those outside the Eurozone. If the EU was really 'protectionist' as you state then surely that should be the opposite way round. The EU is becoming less reliant on the UK not more. As for Ireland that's a moot point. No agreement means we stick with the same EU rules to maintain the open border. The UK has already agreed this. Hence Ireland doesn't have to worry at all (unless the Government were lying...oh wait it's the Tories)...
"We estimate that Brexit will leave a permanent shortfall of €10.2 billion per year in the EU budget...Therefore, large spending categories like CAP are likely to come under pressure if the EU budget is cut" [Directorate-General for Internal Policies advice to the Agricultural committee]
.
The UK government will also be acutely aware that huge increases on tariffs on imports of food will drive inflation on these goods (as 50% of our food comes from abroad and a lot from the EU) and with the number of people on very low wages will have a significant impact on their lives (assuming any Tories in government actually care). Brexit does indeed mean Wrexit...
If only the government had some method of preventing this at its disposal, like, I dunno, reducing tariff rates on imported food, especially stuff that we don't grow in the UK or that grows only seasonally here, which would allow exporters from countries than produce stuff cheaper than in the EU to sell us even cheaper food? "Wrexit" means only one thing; that you do not understand or just willfully refuse to acknowledge the many advantages to leaving the EU, and are so narrow minded about the possibilities that you're bordering on Stockholm Syndrome.
Back to insults I see, running out of rational arguments? No one is arguing that there is financial impact on the EU. However CAP isn't going to disappear so there will still be an EU advantage over UK farmers. It might be reduced but it's unlikely to disappear completely. It's more likely we'll see these foods go up in price to accommodate this loss of income. Given we import a significant fraction of our food then that's not really going to do the lowest earners any favours at all.
Oh and on aside if you really must use three quarters of a page please spoiler it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Brexit: EU relocates Galileo satellite system installation from UK to Spain
This was inevitable. There was an article a while back that noted the problems the space industry would face with EU contracts. Because most of these types of satellites have military uses they are limited to being worked on by the people of those countries (same goes with NASA to a large extent). Basically the rules state that only EU countries may work on these projects (very much summarised). As such for the companies to maintain their presence in the projects they have to relocate. But don't worry we'll have our cheese to sell...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/18 23:11:53
"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
Police forces are failing to meet the official standards for forensic science, making miscarriages of justice inevitable, the government’s forensic regulator has said.
In her annual report, Gillian Tully highlighted her growing concerns about the failure of some forensic firms used by the police to meet basic quality standards. It means innocent people could be wrongly convicted and offenders escaping justice.
The routine outsourcing of criminal forensic work to unaccredited laboratories worries Tully, with some not subject to independent oversight.
She told the Guardian that without urgent action there would inevitably be miscarriages of justice, including in cases involving murder, rape and child abuse.
“If you’re not finding indecent images of children on someone’s phone when you should be, that’s a miscarriage of justice as much as if someone was wrongly convicted of a crime,” Tully said.
The government abolished the Forensic Science Service in 2012, which was the primary provider to the police and courts, resulting in forensic work being transferred to in-house police laboratories and private providers. Conservative ministers wanted to create a market in which independent companies competed for business
I'm now old enough to recall that ministers used to resign for things like ruining the basis of modern criminal justice.
Still tallies wonderfully with the not fit for service privatised parole service. which have been doing such a sterling job of late.
Note how the blame in the article is swiftly punted to the police by the home office .
Schiff asked Simpson later whether he uncovered "any information regarding a connection between Trump or those around him and Wikileaks" — the self-described radical transparency organization founded by Julian Assange that published emails Russia had stolen from the Democratic National Committee.
"Roger Stone bragged about having his contact," Simpson replied, referring to Stone's public comments about having an intermediary with Assange. "We tried to figure out who the contact was."
We started going into who Stone was and who his relationships were with, and essentially the trail led to sort of international far right. And, you know, Brexit happened, and Nigel Farage became someone that we were very interested in, and I still think it's very interesting."
Farage is a British politican who headed the far-right UK Independence Party (UKIP) from 2006-2009 and again from 2010-2016. Farage spearheaded the Brexit movement.
"So I have formed my own opinions that went through - that there was a somewhat unacknowledged relationship between the Trump people and the UKIP people and that the path to Wikileaks ran through that," Simpson said. "And I still think that today."
Schiff then asked whether the data company Cambridge Analytica, whose parent company is based in the UK, was the link between the Trump campaign and the Brexit campaign.
Simpson replied that the billionaire Mercer family, which has been credited with paving the way to Trump's victory, were "signficant" — moreso than Cambridge Analytica, which he said may have been "selling snake oil."
Simpson also mentioned a "Bannon Stone associate" named Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, an American associated with UKIP who he believed was "a significant figure in this."
"Were you able to find any factual links between the Mercers and Assange or Wikileaks or Farage?" Schiff asked.
Simpson pointed to Farage's trips to New York, and said he had been told, but had not confirmed, that "Nigel Farage had additional trips to the Ecuadoran Embassy...and that he provided data to Julian Assange."
"What kind of data?" Schiff asked.
"A thumb drive," Simpson replied.
I am Jack's complete lack of fething surprise.
A bridge.
uh huh.
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,
It's also pretty hard to improve standards whilst getting your budget stripped due to austerity. This is all the obvious consequences of cutting budgets, and a pretty good indication that austerity doesn't actually work (because everything seems to cost more when you cheap out).
