2426 posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
@ Dr. Mouse
"However, they take years to agree and it's what we are currently working towards. We are also asking for a form of freedom of movement between RoI and NI, but not the rest of Europe. That's a lot more than a trade deal."
Not really. The EU had the middle east move through it on their way to Germany which was an actual crisis and increased pressure on other crisis in the process. An FTA with a country that already meets standards and requirements should be so simple the EU has nothing but a poor excuse not to be able to solve it quickly. As for a form of freedom of movement, they already have it and apparently smuggle already because of duties which the EU feels no need to tackle.
"If RoI has a different deal to the rest of Europe, including free movement to the UK and free trade with the UK, how happy are the other 26 nations in the EU going to be about that discrimination against their companies and their citizens? Why should Irish citizens get a better deal, and Irish companies be able to undercut their prices?"
That is an acknowledgement of the advantage of brexit. Its a better deal because they can deal with the UK free of the EU.
"So, if we want free trade and free movement with Ireland while it remains a member of the EU, we would have to accept the same terms with the rest of the EU"
Ok. Is anyone having any problem with that? N Ireland being in the UK but an FTA allowing both parts of Ireland to cooperate as they do now. Other members being able to travel to ROI and play hopscotch with the same border. The usual enforcements being made against criminals with intelligence of their actions but generally letting people live their lives.
"Remember, though, that the EU has already offered a solution to the Irish border problem which we can do while respecting the outcome of the referendum: Remain a member of the EEA/EFTA/Customs Union."
Well if the offers are so generous then the ROI can leave the EU and this isnt a problem. The UK is (will be on brexit) sovereign, the ROI less so (EU).
"That "we" reject the only solution available within the existing framework make's it our problem to find an solution acceptable to the 27 other nations in this negotiation."
Ha, balls and twaddle. As proven by my mirrored proposal that the ROI can leave the EU. So obviously not the only solution. More have been tabled, rejected by the EU and shockingly now back on the table now the EU is interested in solving it. There are options beyond the EU annexing Ireland or trapping the UK in the EU (in whatever name). The EU may not like them but they want a border, it is their problem not ours. We have already decided no border on our side.
@ Dr. Mouse
"We are asking them to create an exception to their rules which doesn't exist anywhere else"
So the EU is incapable of trade deals? Unable to implement technology already in existence? Unable to continue with its usual ignoring of smuggling?-
"Of course, there is smuggling at present, since excise duties differ between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Since the existing smuggling has not necessitated customs infrastructure, a future with free-trade would also not need to do so."- https://briefingsforbrexit.com/where-are-we-on-the-irish-border/
"Do you really think that the other 26 countries (who all have to agree) would be happy with and accept that one particular country in the group gets to put special rules in place which disadvantage their own citizens?"
That must be the first time you have acknowledged (at least to my memory) that brexit is an advantage. And i would agree that Ireland in total would benefit from the protectionism and subsidy of the EU and the freedom from EU regulation of being out.
@ Dr. Mouse
"The solutions I have seen so far have either been rejected by Hard Brexiteers or Loyalist parties in NI"
Really? Like what? I know the negotiators made a number of suggestions and the EU rejected them then suggest they annex Ireland.
"or depend on coming up with some magical new technology/systems in a very short space of time."
Magic technology the EU is already considering implementing elsewhere in the EU.
"In short, there have been no realistic solutions put forward."
Since this is the EU's problem that is very disturbing. That would suggest that the EU, who's existence is predicated on being able to establish trade and improve relations in the world, is incapable of its task.
"We keep arguing round in circles, and we're obviously not going to agree here. I cannot see how the Irish border is not a problem of the UK's making for the UK to solve, and I also can't see how you would disagree."
You do seem to have identified the problem. How can the EU's border control be the UK's problem? Just as the EU has no say over UK controlled borders once we leave. So if our side decide no border that is it, our side implements no border. That doesnt dictate what the EU does but their border is their problem.
Interestingly apparently the smart people on both sides cant agree on what a hard border is-
Re: Dictionary anyone?
"Remain always was about a lot more than what the Leave campaign portrayed it as..."
>Of change! Change is scary.
>Of the Chancellor! Osborne making a clear and direct threat against the population with the punishment budget.
>Of the EU! Because they might try to punish the country in their civilised temper tantrum.
>Of the US! They might try to take advantage by selling us things! The worst being chlorinated chicken proven safe even by the European food standards.
>Of China! The Chinese might try to take advantage by selling us things.
>Of foreigners generally! Those foreigners might take advantage and sell us things. Without protectionism we might actually deal with counties poorer than ourselves and that is beneath us.
>Of economic recovery! Oh no we are doomed. We get the inflation we need to increase the base rate as is needed to prepare us for the next recession due approximately each decade yey business cycle. Brexit delivering what the BoE and gov have been trying to do since 2008.
>Of our own standards! Because apparently dictated foreign standards are better than those who are complaining about it. With so many 'educated, successful, none of that hoi polloi trash" remain voters one would assume they had a part in setting the standards they so fear.
>Of losing other peoples money! As a net contributor to the EU through tax money and then some comes back the people sucking that source of money dont want it to remain with the ones who earned it.
Many more to add?
"So, to everyone who voted leave - happy now?"
Why would we be happy? We are still stuck in the EU. A 'transition' period seems to be the way we will be ignored for a bit longer and still more attempts to trap us in the EU continue. Try asking that question if we ever get out actually removing the country from the EU.
Re: Well (@Codejunky)
"A soft border+hard Brexit would turn most of the UK's economy into smuggling operations, moving any goods into Europe."
And what used to happen with the border? Smuggling. Hard to stop too since there isnt a land border but an artificial line. Interestingly since the EU have accepted the UK would have a competitive advantage for leaving I expect Ireland would be very prosperous for having the protectionist subsidy of the EU for being in and the freedom from EU bureaucracy being out. But you are right that the EU cannot have a protectionist bubble with a hole. Again their problem.
"Of course the UK can fix things. All they have to do is align their regulations and standards with the EU"
So not leave the EU because the EU want an Irish border if we do? Thats pretty stupid. What other grovelling behaviour should we have to the EU? Your comment does prove however that the EU has taken away our sovereignty. Otherwise we would be free to be a sovereign country and the EU might be competent enough to make a trade deal at least over Ireland.
"The problem is that the UK is still asking for all the benefits of membership, plus extra privileges that EU members do not have, without the obligations"
Interestingly that is one of the remain arguments, to remain so we dont lose our extra privileges. I do point out they could vote for a party who will rejoin the EU but then we will have to accept the whole project with no opt outs. It doesnt seem popular amongst the remainers, yet they tell us the EU is good to be in.
@ Rob D.
"The fact that the EU (negotiators) are stating that a border would be required does not equate to the EU stating that they want a border."
That is a step closer than a lot of replies I get. A border has 2 sides. If the UK/NI doesnt want a border we dont make one. If the EU/ROI dont want one they dont make one. If instead of desperately clinging to something to negotiate about the EU agrees to effectively no border in Ireland then the problem is solved. The one wanting the border is the one demanding it, holding out for it, unwilling to not have one. It truly is that simple that the EU want a border and so it is their problem.
"So we change the EU rules to give Portugal a special status that no other country in the world has, and everyone can agree to that, can't they?"
Actually the EU can. They can choose not to and thats up to them but so be it. There is also the good friday agreement which our lack of desire for a border meets the criteria of the agreement (from my understanding of it) and imposing a border would be problematic. So if the EU wants a border it is the one imposing it and it would be the ROI going along with it who would be violating it (technically). Solutions have been proposed by the UK but the EU want a harder border so nuff said.
"(Subtitute 'border with Ireland' for 'participate fully in Galileo' to get back on topic.)"
Very different issues. As the EU's vanity project and technically theirs it is not our problem to build and pay for their toy for them to play with. I dont know if this is their level headed thought that brought this about or their temper tantrum (similar to the TLD tantrum). But I dont really care nor do I want to be represented by such a childish political entity. Hell they are in trade war with the US after pointing out it is protectionism and bad to do!
That is a very well reasoned comment and I agree the EU will likely end up treated as any other country in the world. It would be nice if we could organise a trade deal of some sort and for them to accept a no border or practically no border option for Ireland but it doesnt seem like they are currently willing. But none of these issues are any different than trading with the world vs the EU currently.
If a business wants to export anywhere it must meet the standards of the importing country. That doesnt change in or out of the EU, but we wont have to have the EU's standards imposed on our country. People who do not export to the EU will not have to comply with the EU just as they dont need to comply with anyone else they dont export to.
"Just another fugue from reality. No business can survive by producing goods to several different standards. An exporting business will now have to meet all relevant standards - not just CE."
I am not sure what you two are arguing. Is it the idea that nobody trades with each other because we all have different standards (except in the EU where we are all similarly restricted)? You do realise that exports must meet the importing countries standards not the exporters. The tighter our rules the less we can export because by the other countries standards they can make less restricted items.
To try and explain better. If the EU has rules limiting the power of the vacuum cleaner to a barely functional level and other countries can use ones that work that means the EU can probably export, if anyone wants a barely functional item. But the other countries could still export to the EU their less powerful models while at home having what they actually want.
@ Fruit and Nutcase
"What if the UK were to LEASE Northern Ireland to the Republic for say 99 years"
Not sure that would work. The current NI gov want out of the EU. Also I am not sure you could make such a deal with the republic since the EU speaks for the republic so the deal would have to be with the EU. And since the EU has barely moved from another existential crisis (Italy) there would have to be a clause for if/when the EU dissolved intentionally or crashed out disorganised.
Re: To codejunky and shademeister
@ John Smith 19
"Thank you so very much for giving me so many opportunities to down vote you."
Thank you for loyally following us on these boards, I cant speak for Shadmeister but to have such a devoted fan is quite flattering although I do wonder how many of those downvotes were followed by any reasoned comment from you.
"Only the young can have such unwavering faith in so utterly a delusional course of action."
I will take that as a complement, although isnt the claim that the young either didnt vote or voted remain?
"I wonder if you'll remain in the UK and live through the consequences of the Brexit you so champion.
That is if you're even in the UK now."
I certainly did vote to leave, I do live here and I have no intention of moving. Did you vote? And are you in the UK? And will you remain in the UK or will you move to the EU where you might be happier, except for all the opt outs?
"IF the sectarian conflict recurs, it will be mostly fought in NI and the rest of the UK. That makes the border the UK's problem, no matter who puts it in."
Hang on, are you calling the Irish idiots? As I keep pointing out we dont want a border and the Irish dont but the EU does. So if the EU makes a border you think the Irish are too stupid to realise it is not the UK who can change anything? I give them more credit than that.
@ Dr. Mouse
"If this has affected our growth during this time, which it will, then the repercussions last at least until our growth offsets the reduction in growth over those few years."
Even the pessimistic views showed continued growth. They had reduced growth than if we remained but there were pessimistic outlooks by remain.
"Ireland wants to remain a part of the EU, and the EU has rules to control it's external border."
So by that statement it is not ROI nor UK that is the problem. I dont care if you want to blame Ireland or the EU but it isnt our problem. We aint arguing for a border, we are arguing against.
"The EU doesn't want a border between the UK and the rest of the EU"
If that was even half true the EU wouldnt be insisting on a border. You counter your own claims by claiming the EU doesnt want a border because the UK doesnt want one yet some idiot is arguing for one. It aint us.
"- A main part of the campaign to leave was removing freedom of movement.
- Freedom of movement exists between NI and the rest of the UK.
- Freedom of movement exists between RoI and the rest of the EU.
- Therefore if freedom of movement exists between RoI and NI, it exists between UK and EU."
Controlling our own borders is different to freedom of movement (restricted for the 'approved' countries of the EU). Agreeing to a slightly different agreement for Ireland is pretty easy. Our negotiators have already suggested options, the EU is being stupid and your defending them.
"I was replying to individual comments, of which there are a lot."
I get that no worries. I try to consolidate into single comments (per commenter) only because some moaning gits complain I post so many comments.
@ H in The Hague
"Brilliant - now manufacturers potentially need even more, different standards to adhere to. That's going to make manufacturing so much more efficient."
Are you somehow claiming we dont trade with other countries outside the EU because we dont abide by all the various and conflicting rules for all the various countries? We do not need to apply the importing countries standards to our own country. If that was true then countries would not be able to trade.
"This ain't a negotiation. It was never going to be a negotiation, and it certainly isn't going to be one however much you cry foul."
I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not crying foul. I am quite happy with no negotiation if the end is nothing less than a hard brexit.
"And we'll be free to make our own trade deals - each of which will include its own set of rules/regs/whatnots, along with a dispute-settling mechanism that is out of our control."
Now thats just a lack of understanding. To trade does not require we apply those standards at home. Whatever we export must meet the importers regs. We do not have to apply those rules here. So no leaving the EU to trade with the world is not the same as trading in the EU and being shackled by their rules.
"The notion that we can decide the nature of a two-sided border is just another of the unicorns the Brexiteers are farming."
That is another lack of understanding. A 2 sided border has (gonna shock you) 2 sides. We decide we dont want a border, we dont make one. Not our problem. If the EU wants one they can make one. The UK doesnt want a border, the EU does, its their problem not ours. No matter how many unicorns the EU want.
@ Dr. Mouse
"The UK was a party to the Good Friday agreement, and is now reneging on it's commitments in that by leaving the EU"
I might be wrong but doesnt the Good Friday Agreement mention the EU's existence in passing? If the EU wants to break the agreement that is up to them but leaving the EU is not breaking the agreement.
"and forcing there to be an external EU border between RoI and NI"
And that is the EU's problem. Ireland doesnt want a border. UK doesnt want a border. If the EU wants one they can do it. Not our problem.
"Secondly, if there is no hard border between NI and RoI, there is no hard border between UK and EU (as there is no hard border between RoI and EU, and none between NI and the rest of the UK). Isn't that one of the main things which leavers wanted?"
Are you telling us what we wanted or interpreting the worst you can think of or what?
Btw can you use a single comment to reply instead of multiple for the same thread. It wouldnt be fair for us to spam the boards.
@ Dr. Mouse
"In the short term AT LEAST this is likely to be damaging to the UK"
The argument that leave is bad in the short term wipes out any arguments that remain is for the next generations. A short adjustment while being a positive for the country is a good thing, and better than a massive destructive and prolonged damage to the UK later.
"Then you get the fact that the rest of the world can see this and knows how desperate we will be to form new agreements, and they will take liberties with terms."
Fear the foreigner? Instead of being boned by the EU you fear we may get boned by foreigners? All those mean people out there. Why so desperate? I dont think we will be so why do you think we will be?
"America have shown that they won't allow trade deals which would rule out their inferior food markets"
Oh no the poisonous US chicken? The one approved as safe by the European food standards? We are doomed.
"Setting up our own versions of these will not happen overnight, nor will they be internationally recognised overnight."
Oh no. How will we function without the EU. The EU only existing for 25 years and so far being a joke. As you have probably gathered at no point so far am I worried or concerned or breaking a sweat.
"Hard Brexit is likely to damage us severely in the first few years, and any improvements (which may or may not happen) will start to build after that. How is that good for anyone?"
So in your scenario we are better off after a few years. And then you ask how that is good for anyone? I think I will refer you to what you just said and hey presto we are better off out.
@ Doctor Syntax
"If you recognised the reality that negotiations would be unproductive why did you support Leave?"
Read my comment ffs. Hard brexit is a positive in my opinion and requires no agreement nor consent from the EU, it is ours to have. If the EU was willing to have constructive negotiation then we could both benefit but if not we still get brexit. I supported leave because I believe it the right thing to do. At what point is that complicated for you?
"That means that there will be a border between the UK and the EU because that's what borders are: demarcations between one political entity and another."
Ohhh. So no hard border just a line on the map? Nothing to be a problem then, thats solved. Why is the EU crying about it then?
@ Doctor Syntax
"And negotiations between the EU and the UK make it a UK one."
The UK doesnt want one so somehow its the UK's problem. Thats just dumb. The EU wants one so its the UK's problem. I am sorry but I thought you were better than that. No just no for every weak argument and mental gymnastics effort to claim this is our problem that is the worst.
@ Doctor Syntax
"In other words, it's the reality. We've always said that. You didn't believe it. You can see it happening. You still don't believe it. Why?"
Why do you think I dont believe it? I identified it seems to be the way the negotiations are being conducted. And as I point out it is unproductive. I have commented on it plenty with the EU 'demands' and people not seeming to realise that hard brexit can be conducted without the EU's permission and is a positive step. A negotiated mutually beneficial trade deal would be better but we cant force the EU to be constructive.
"Indeed, think Ireland."
I have. And the answer is its the EU's problem. Ireland (both parts) dont want a border. The UK doesnt want a border. So its the EU's problem if they do.
@ Dr. Mouse
"Giving a good deal to the UK could quite easily cause other members to re-evalute"
Probably. The EU is in again existential crisis while being in multiple self inflicted crises and one of their net contributors and while small punches above its weight in the world members is choosing to leave. And I expect you are right (and I believe it too) that the EU is in fear for its survival in these negotiations. We are in fear of a bad deal (trapped in the EU) and a hard brexit would be a step up.
"Also remember that any new deal must be ratified by ALL the remaining member countries."
This problem is one of the reasons the EU doesnt work. Personally I think it needs to federalise or revert to the common market. As it is the EU seems incapable of a rational or competent decision as it requires too many decision makers and a unanimous decision. The good news for leave is that the EU failing to make a deal gives us a hard brexit even if it would be better for both sides if the EU was more capable.
"it would also need to be seen as significantly less beneficial than EU membership to discourage others from leaving "
The mutual gain bit is easy, we both gain from mutual cooperation. But it would be down to EU spin to make the UK's position outside the EU worse than being in, regardless of any deal. I am not really a fan of the 'who has the better hand' arguments as it is often used with zero sum prospects in mind. But simply the EU has nothing on us. They cannot stop us leaving and they already recognise being out would give us a competitive advantage.
@ Dr. Mouse
"Firstly, one of the main themes of the Leave campaign was control of our borders. So, having "no border" between NI violates that."
I dont understand how people can get this simple concept so wrong. Control of our borders means our own choice over the border. If we dont want one that is 100% consistent with control as is anything else as long as we decide.
"It's all about how "hard" that border is"
Aka the EU's problem. Ireland (both sides) dont want a border. The UK wants frictionless trade so doesnt want a border. Oh wow thats simple then. Its the EU's problem if they want a border.
"As others have already commented (a few times) this is less of a negotiation than an implementaion of the existing rules. Many of which, including the ones now excluding the UK from Galileo, were written by the UK."
I have also said meh I dont care if we are 'kicked out' of Galileo. But I responded to a comment which seemed to think negotiation was about one side wining and one losing. I was pointing out mutual gain is surely better. An unpopular view maybe in tribal warfare but in civilisation often the outcome we all want.
@ Mark Dempster
"As a member state we had the ability to veto any development such as the one you mention. So it wouldn't be an issue."
I find it interesting that people want to remain in the EU, just not actually be in the EU proper. If it is something they want why should we be standing in their way? Just as their desire to federalise and such.
"You do realise that the US's aggressive new tariffs apply to the UK too? And would do whether we were in or out of the EU? But outside the EU we'll have a lot less ability to fight back."
Fight back? As the EU was smart enough to identify, the US was acting in a protectionist way. That makes the people of the country poorer. It is a charge against the people in the country who apply the tariffs. So Trump points a gun at his foot, pulls the trigger and says 'aha!! take that!'. The EU in their idiocy then 'fight back' as you call it by making people in the EU poorer! 'Aha!! Take that!'. Just as they would have with Chinese steel if the UK didnt stop them.
Doing stupid because others are doing stupid is not fighting back. It is stupid!
"When you have one (smallish) country negoiating against 27 who did you think were going to wun?"
That is a very 'zero sum' view of negotiating. It is also a very unproductive way of looking at negotiation which is pretty harmful. Unfortunately it does seem the negotiations may be being carried out that way.
The bottom line is simple, to leave the EU we stop participating. That means no money, freedom to do as we please regarding borders (think Ireland) and no need to abide by the EU rules/regs/whatnots. And of course the EU stops its things with the UK (galileo for example). Who wins in that situation?
Surely the situation would be improved where the UK gets a trade deal and the EU gets contributions to its funding. We dont want a border in Ireland but if the EU has the will to make one then who benefits? Surely it would be better for both sides to come to an arrangement. Surely both sides would benefit from a deal on security for sharing some information.
I am a leave voter and I see a hard brexit as a positive for the UK in the long run. But that doesnt mean it couldnt be a hell of a lot better and I would think it a good thing to try and improve on it. But if the EU is unwilling or want to play a zero sum game then I am happy with hard brexit. I am more irritated by May insisting negotiation must continue when the EU refuses to negotiate and the constant attempts to hobble brexit while whining brexit isnt going well.
As far as I am concerned I dont see the big problem with 'being kicked off' the EU's vanity project. Why would we want to pay for and build their toy so they can enjoy it? I am very interested to know why the gov would want to build yet another one, we dont need to be willy waving.
Another amusing development I read about this morning (msn so I dont count it as credible yet) is the EU putting together some kind of security fund to only be spent in the EU for technological developments for war. If it is true it is a good job we got out before paying for another gravy boat.
And of course the EU is now in a trade war with the US. We should be pushing to leave asap and demanding the gov just gets on with the hard brexit (the EU could always decide to do a trade deal if they want but lets not hang on for them to get common sense). In one breath it sounds like the EU understands 'tariffs are protectionist' and then they prove clueless as they then retaliate.
I am interested to see how the EU gets around the islands problem. Simply we can just charge them rent to the benefit of those islands.
"I'm still waiting for you to actually be right about something..."
And who are you? And at which point am I wrong? Seems to be such certainty I am wrong, just no answer as to how.
@ Destroy All Monsters
"Probably believes the PC bollocks, too."
PC bollocks? At what point do you guys believe I am wrong?
@ Rich 11
"Do you also believe in unicorns?"
Oh no, please dont tell me you dont realise this is the good times. If your a believer in Keynes then this is the time to be fixing the roof before the next recession hits.
I am sorry to tell you that if you think normal is the peak of the greatest boom in recent history plus labour borrowing heavily and selling off UK gold, then I have bad news for you. We recovered from the recession ages ago, we need to be normalising the country now to be ready for the next recession. That means taking away the stimulus by raising interest rates and unwinding QE.
I am of course assuming you are in the UK, the US is in a much better position (although Trumps trade war may harm that). If however you are in the Eurozone I understand the disbelief and I am sorry for the damage caused to your economy by the ECB and the currency. And I honestly wish you the best of luck for whichever country you are in.
"Tech and other firms like to come to blighty because we are moving to the American model of little regulation (after brexit) and exploiting workers."
So lets compare. Full employment, recovery from the last recession and apart from bone headed trade war tariffs economically doing well. Or the EU who are the opposite except for retaliating with bone headed trade war tariffs.
Is it the US or EU in existential crisis again?
Re: We're spending more on administering this than we are on actual welfare
We have a huge public sector (and private but exist only for the public sector) and the gov vacuums so much money out of the economy for their desires and amusement, it amazes me how poor a job the gov does at serving the population.
Even when Osborne was claiming austerity he was spending more and more only reducing the increase of pissing away money. Maybe the gov/public sector should go on a diet.
@ Dan 55
"The welfare system is complicated because people's lives are complicated"
Kinda sorta maybe. There is an element of that but there is also the bribery for example triple lock pensions which are designed around buying votes. This is where I wish I believed in universal income but I am not convinced by that so far.
You might be right that it will never be a simple enough problem for a UC system to handle but I do agree that the tax system is as complicated as it is due to politicians. Oddly this issue seems to be politicians all the way down.
(btw I have no idea who has downvoted you. Your comment seems pretty good to me)
UC is a good idea. Unfortunately how on earth is it going to work when the tax/welfare system is so over complicated and disjointed?
Re: So after a couple of decades of the warm embrace of the wonderful unicorn and moonbeams
@ John Smith 19
"But IRL it's held together by laws and treaties."
Flexible ones at that. As long as its the critical countries for the EU's survival- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11207721/Why-do-France-and-Germany-keep-breaking-EU-rules.html
"The UK entered the EEC in 1975, making anyone who lived through a the UK not being a member of a European Union in their late 40's at least."
Is this an attempt to claim the EU existed before the EU existed?
"You mention of a 20 year EU is (I presume) the Treaty of Masstrict,"
And the founding of the EU.
"Neither Margaret Thatcher, nor here successor John Major deemed a referendum necessary and both had the absolute majority (unlike May) to do exactly what they wanted."
Well said. So this is the first vote on our membership of the EU after being in the EU for 20 years. 20 years to prove itself invaluable, and instead they couldnt even get a majority support from the UK.
"This has never been about the UK population.It's always been about keeping the Conservative Party together and killing off UKIP"
How can you view this as separate issues? The reason the tories feared UKIP is UKIP was actually popular and offering what people wanted. Their support had grown to such a volume that it cornered Cameron into sticking by his promise for a referendum. A promise voted for consistently from when labour were the lead party. And after both parties reneged on their promise UKIP grew to amazing levels of support. That was achieved by the population.
"A fact you will begin to understand as the consequences for the UK economy become clear."
So far so good. If your a believer in experts then the positive outlook is supported by Osborne and Carney (not how they spun it but factually positive) and Mervyn King. If you dislike experts then even the EU recognise we would gain competitive advantage over them if we leave and so want us to agree to abide by their rules.
"Unless of course you aren't a UK citizen, or have dual nationality. In which case you'll probably run to whatever bolt hole you've got prepared."
I am a UK citizen (I think we covered this before but maybe it was another remain doomsayer). No I dont have dual nationality. Why would I run? The aim was to free the UK from the EU, I intend on living in it. This is about the future of the country and doing what I feel is right for the people in the UK. I am sure you have the same feelings, and so we vote. And then we get a democratic result.
Re: If they want to change the rules they can do the work Because they voted for it.
@ John Smith 19
"By a margin of 13 to 12.
Which is normally within the statistical noise."
So after a couple of decades of the warm embrace of the wonderful unicorn and moonbeams EU they couldnt get a vote of support, not even within the range of statistical noise! Wow that is pitiful! Good job its a one off.
Except of course Greece voted a gov to reject the EU's demands. Italy voted an anti-euro party and an anti-EU party as their top scorers. According to its president France could vote out if given the choice, probably noticed as the NF came second.
@ Anonymous Coward
"Isn't that, word for word, the British government stance?"
Not quite. It was brexit means brexit but are willing to negotiate for various mutual benefits. The EU just doesnt want (or isnt capable of) such negotiation. I expect eventually some sort of arrangement will be made when the EU's pride is no longer an issue or its the last minute and the EU hastily agrees something.
Re: What's the point of this?
@ Hans 1
I am a brit but I am glad you managed to get that off your chest, I do hope you are feeling better now. If you would like to understand my comment you should read the thread (preferably before Dr_N and his trolling).
Re: " nor did the Brexit bunch. It's just remainer FUD."
@ Dan 55
"But pay no attention to the poster next to Boris Johnson..."
Ha! He is a numpty. At the start I expected the official leave campaign had been intentionally set up as a trojan horse to give the gov the result they wanted. That is until I saw the campaign on both sides. I dont think either of them did anybody proud.
Re: What's the point of this?
"Is it a new problem/discovery, does it affect only the German air force."
I have no idea. As you point out other countries dont seem to suffer the same. I wont be shocked if it is just a maintenance problem.
Re: What's the point of this?
"I'm not lying about Turks getting to fix 'em though, am I. Unlike your good self likes to lie about Turks and Visa free travel"
I know the warnings not to feed the troll but since you are following me like some kind of pet. What are you on about?
Re: What's the point of this?
"Any link to your claim about "10 working eurofighters of 70", or is it just bull.."
Worth asking. Source- http://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jets-combat-ready-report/a-43611873
While they may have that many aircraft it does not mean they are in a usable state. The spending issue I mentioned was here-
Re: What's the point of this?
Hello again my troll. Can you explain how your comment about getting RAF planes fixed abroad has anything to do with the shortage of German aircraft (or military)? Or even anything to do with my comment?
Or did you just want to add some racism again? I dont know what your problem is with foreigners but it does make me uncomfortable.
Re: What's the point of this?
"Given that the EU members seem hell bent on having pathetic military capabilities"
I read recently the Germans were discussing meeting their NATO required spending to which one of them said they wouldnt know how to spend that much nor on what. Considering their airforce has less than 10 working eurofighters of 70 and when they sent pilots and aircraft to help in Iraq the only one to arrive at the destination was the war minister I think it would be pretty easy.
"why the EU is bothering with Galileo at all apart from the bragging rights"
I am a little bothered when people say the UK should build their own because the EU's is nothing more than a vanity project anyway. I am amused that the block in multiple (self inflicted) crises is blowing money on satellites but thats their problem not ours.
Re: You'd think interest in automation would peak
Apparently there is a push to roll out further automation in the US fast food industry thanks to the demands for higher minimum wage. The BBC also had an article (and video) of an automated strawberry picker. When people are too expensive the business fails or alternatives are applied.
Rand Paul. Simplify the tax structure. Simplify regulation and shrink the government. I know your trolling but it is from a position of disliking my position on brexit not on anything factual. But maybe at some point you will get past your issues. Or forever be my troll
@ James 51
"According to the model if you have asthma and pneumonia you're less likely to die if you do nothing which is not the case."
Based on the information it is given it is a correct assumption. Without further information we believed the sun went around the earth. When a set of circumstances arises and the outcome seems consistent we assume correlation = causation. It is a lack of input information that leads to the wrong conclusion.
Oddly applying the model would then show a problem as the increased danger of asthma and pneumonia would be identified, Assuming the model was to learn from the new data.
Facebook stockholders tell Zuck to reform voting rules as data scandal branded 'human rights violation'
That is my point, but followed with a big dollop of so what. The outsiders hold the power to sell their shares if they disagree with the voting system. There shouldnt be any intervention from the gov, this is a private matter internal to FB.
The outsiders choose to buy FB shares. If they want to put capital into a company they can get more control of they need to sell their shares and buy into another company.
"shareholder democracy is already lacking at Facebook"
Cry me a river. In a market economy if you do not like how the company is acting on your behalf sell your shares. When the shares were bought I expect the situation was the same, so if they dont like the situation they can remove themselves easily.
In the market your money is your vote, use it. If enough people feel the same way it will impact the capital available to the company. Buying in and then demanding the voting process is unfair doesnt make Zuck look bad, it makes you look bad for choosing to join and then complain.