2210 posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
"originally conceived in Britain have had to go elsewhere to find the funding to progress from "interesting theory" to "commercial success"."
Is that a problem? Do we want a theory or a commercial success? The commercial success being the advances that we actually get to access while a theory while cool does lack the implementation.
But is that what we are talking about here? This is a European project to produce a good for the European group which we are a member. While we care that it gets done do we care where as long as we access the advancements? And surely the academics will move with the work or if this country is best placed to do 'it' (whatever parts) work remains here. What this article seems to suggest is we cough up more money to keep the work here, which costs us more to get the advancement we would have anyway. Do correct me if I am wrong but if I am right then we are paying more, and we may want to consider if it is worth it.
@ Charlie Clark
"Yeah, let's stop providing universal education, it only makes the peasant uppity."
Please clarify what garbage you are claiming I am saying so I can be certain for what I am laughing at you for.
"I mean the ideology which refers to government funding as "spaffing money"."
Cheers for the clarification. It does depend on what we consider important and there has to be an amount of spending by government. But the government has spaffed money and it has harmed the country as New Labour demonstrated during the greatest boom.
Its up to the ESA where the money goes and if they want to follow the money then cool, I dont hold that against them at all. If the ESA decide the UK does not provide for its needs then fine, why should we be upset about that? We should be happy for the job to go where the best results should be. I dont think we should put money in the begging bowl of those not willing to pursue those jobs wherever they go, and I equate that with expensive welfare if they are not worth the ESA's time unless we spaff money on the UK academics.
This is a demand for more money. Something of a regular sight when an excuse presents itself and if one doesnt present one will be created. And its the people who get to pay this not the gov. These few people are demanding the many are exploited to pay them for not pursuing the work elsewhere or being good enough in this country to attract that work.
"You are blinded by your ideology."
Sorry I might be misunderstanding what ideology you mean. Do you mean not agreeing with us spaffing money to keep these people here as they threaten to go elsewhere if we dont? I dont have a problem with them doing that just as I have no problem with us participating in the space projects if we are deemed a country with the necessary resources to contribute.
I know a lot (probably the vast majority) of space funding comes from government and I am not particularly arguing against that. I do disagree we should beg to keep them here so we can pay them not to leave for a job that will be done anyway in a group we are already part of. I believe the best for the job should be chosen and if that is not how the project is conducted then we dont need to join in the bribing. Seems a waste of money.
@ Voland's right hand
"Money is like manure. You have to spread it make beautiful new things grow."
Saying the world will end if you dont give me money is an oldie but a goodie. And of course this technology is so valuable that private enterprise will not pay for it because it is a loss. Which of course leaves governments. And hey look at the begging bowls, only having to convince a few who take the money from the many and have a wonderful history of selecting winners.... honest.
You did skip over the part of my comment which said surely the work should be done where it is best achieved. If it is purely a welfare system (begging for public purse money) then it can be anywhere willing to splash the cash to keep these people off the dole. If its an actual attempt to succeed then the influence against this country shouldnt be a problem, because they should select the best places for the best kit/experts/academics.
If money is like manure then nobody should be complaining about the NHS, gov nor public sector thanks to the wonderful years of shit from over a decade of labour pissing money. Money invested wisely is good. Throwing money in any old direction because it solves all problems is a sure way to run out of money and have nothing to show for it.
"Lucy Berthoud of the Space Universities Network, also warned of “Brexodus”, referring to the potential loss of research staff and students."
So the people will go where the work goes, and the work will go where the tax payer is stumping up for all this. Ok.
"While the EU doesn't directly control where ESA work goes, because 20 of the members of ESA are also EU members, the EU has some de facto influence."
Good for them. I honestly mean that. Hopefully they are choosing this on the best place with the best people to do the best job. One would hope.
"Academics and industry said the impact could be mitigated, if the government finds a way to replace lost funding"
Give me money! I want money! More money! Money money money! Who is going to piss more money on meeeeee? How about no.
"Give it a bloody rest with your "Rampant hordes of brown folk!!!!" codejunky."
Your racism does bother me. Or you attempt to claim I am racist so you have something to complain about. Is the only thing on your mind people coloured different to you?
"And FFS have you ever tried brevity when posting? You're not trying to write a thesis."
Sorry but when discussing on a forum I prefer to interact with people who can read. And I can only assume my posts aint long enough since you still think I am racist. I can understand why dumbing it down would make it easier for you to pull apart incomplete arguments which is probably why your complaining and sticking to the race topic only with me.
In brief- no I wont bring myself down to your level. Sorry.
"I do think Brexiteers will be rather less complacent about matters if they paused and thought about all those people wishing to cross Europe and get to the UK"
I am not exactly following your comment so sorry if I am not answering what you wrote. If you mean people coming here from the EU, I thought thats what remainers wanted? So under such assumption the remainers should be happy about it. As a leave voter it would be easier to border check in Britain. Since we have had the issue of Calais for many years while in the EU there doesnt seem to be much to this. People go to Ireland (from inside or outside the EU) and Ireland is treated as a special case. I think it would do wonders for Ireland.
With our current system we still ended up with a homeless middle eastern illegal immigrant who had been deported (at least once) for being a criminal freeze to death at waterloo station (if I remember all that right).
As for soft borders Germany unilaterally invited the middle east (accidentally) to move in. As a result one of the crisis of the EU was caused by a single member. The result of that action was the EU being dragged into supporting Germany by redistributing people around the EU who didnt extend such an invite. Some countries (I think Germany too?) are paying asylum seekers to go away and has increased tensions against the EU (worsening another of their crisis). The EU has form with soft borders. They also know how to bend and break their rules. And they in theory are supposed to be good at trade deals. Making an agreement over Ireland should be easy for them.
@ Dan 55
"The EU and Canada and the EU and Korea have a trade agreement but you've forgotten there's a hard border between them"
So your saying the EU is not competent enough to accept the reality of Ireland not having any actual geographical border as the border cuts through the middle of roads/pubs/land in general? Its fine to admit that.
"having no border makes a mockery of the trade agreement"
But as you point out the GFA doesnt allow for a border and the UK is fine not having one in Ireland. So the one demanding such is the one contravening the agreement. Some people suggested the UK moving its influence back to the water and Ireland in full be under EU rules, maybe the EU would like to back off if to the water if that is their only conceivable (to them) solution? Or they can be responsible for making a border, breaking the agreement and pay for it themselves. Faced with that idea I think the EU may be capable of negotiation pretty quick.
"I don't know what "a soft border (a lie)" means but in any case there cannot be any otherwise that's a contravention of the GFA."
The soft border/lie is to claim there is a soft border. To even have checkpoints that dont really need to do much (not to do anything beyond exist really) and so it is a lie all 4 parties can be happy with. Aka no border. Except the EU wants one.
"That means either a special agreement for NI"
Bang on! You are there. Ireland want it (both parts), the UK want it too! So the EU is the problem, they need to get this sorted, they need to stop being obstructionist and instead get on with making an agreement. One that allows for effectively Ireland to be in and out of the EU and treated as a special case. Something the EU has form at doing so have no good reason not to be capable of doing now.
@ Dan 55
"Of course Ireland doesn't want a border, a border means dead people. The UK says it doesn't want a border and says it doesn't want dead people either, but if that were really true it wouldn't insist at the same time on the right to set different tariffs and standards"
2+2 != 5 redo your process. Or if you want the answer look at my previous comments where the only one wanting the border is the EU and the solutions to it. This is already answered above. Seriously just look.
"The British government has decided it wanted the impossible and you agree with it"
Leaving the EU is not impossible. It is very possible. So yes I agree with it.
"You, like the British government, completely fail to address the tariff/standards divergence issue which means a border is necessary"
I will repeat myself within the same comment- This is already answered above. Seriously just look.
"contravenes WTO rules."
Which is solved by either a soft border (a lie) or a trade agreement (requires the EU to agree).
"Neither you nor the UK government have the option of thinking happy thoughts to make a squadron of flying unicorns come and take the problem away."
I know that is why I have to repeat myself to you in the same comment.
"Why don't you tell us here what you want?"
C we offer the EU frictionless trade or a soft border (UK gov has already offered both, EU rejects them) and it is not our problem. It isnt what I want, what the gov wants nor Ireland as a whole since the options have been presented to the EU and what happens now is what the EU wants. This is the EU's problem now no matter how much crying, stamping or wailing they do. The UK has done more than it has to. If we leave and dont put up a border (no deal because the EU refuses to) then the EU will have to make its own border, man its own border, pay for its own border and suffer the consequences of its decision.
So which choice do you want the EU to go with?
@ Loyal Commenter
"The 'demand' for money, is for the amounts we have already committed to the EU budget until 2020. Well, actually, for less than that."
Lets start from the absolute fact. The EU is entitled to nothing (and the UK too). We walk away with no deal the EU is entitled to squat. They dont have to like it but they are entitled to zip. That is the cold hard fact that they either accept or suffer but that is it full stop. That is why there is negotiation to leave. The EU wants to spend money, they committed an amount of money they expected us to pay, and if they want money then they need to negotiate for it. They dont have to like it but thats the reality.
"The analogy is going to a restaurant with a group of people, agreeing to split the bill, ordering all the most expensive stuff on the menu and then deciding you don't actually want to eat and you are going to leave without paying because you saw another restaurant down the road you prefer the look of."
Ok, but that is a bad analogy as we have been a net contributor and our contribution abused by them making agreement with our government then breaking the agreement. The EU has enjoyed our wallet all meal as they keep ordering and now we decide to get up and leave they cry we need to leave them some money for them to keep eating. Much better analogy. Far closer to the truth.
"The Irish Border issue is not a demand from the EU"
Then you need to recheck because your wrong. The UK has put offers forward for the EU's absolute demand for a border, offering soft bordering. A treaty allowing their trade would also be possible if the EU would agree. Except their latest demand (again) is a hard border. Or in Trumps words- put up a wall and you will pay for it. Aka we laugh, EU looks foolish and if the EU really want one they can make it.
"Sovereignty - we never 'lost' it."
Really? So we didnt give the EU to handle our trade deals (removing our sovereignty) or give the EU to right to make laws for us (removing our sovereignty) etc? You are wrong.
"The EU isn't going to accept that the rights of its citizens be administered by a UK court"
Then the EU can bend over and shove their demand somewhere it probably wont fit. The EU will have the same level of rights/powers as other foreign countries. If that isnt enough for them then they are reaching, and may want to consider negotiating. Otherwise they are like anyone else, they are not special. It is up to the citizens where they want to be not the EU.
"You are clearly an erudite individual, and your insistence on arguing your same points indicates that either you genuinely believe that brexit is a good thing for the country"
Thank you and I do. I dont care if the EU wants to federalise or whatever, I just dont want us to be part of what the EU is as it is which isnt very good. I honestly hope the EU fixes its massive problems for the benefit of their population but also because even outside the EU what happens in Europe will have an affect on our country, I want them to succeed as I want us to succeed. But Europe is not the EU, the EU is in multiple crises and doesnt have the support of the populations behind it. I was one of those horrible, retarded, idiot eurosceptics when we had the same debate over the Euro. I was also on the right side of that argument and the 'smart' people vanished under their self-righteous rocks. I have been here before on the unpopular side of the debate, but based on facts.
"despite the fact that none of the well-prepared arguments for it stand up to scrutiny"
Which one doesnt stand? I have argued this out plenty on the basis of economy, trade, sovereignty, immigration and democracy. I have factually discussed the crises of the EU/Eurozone and why it is a bad project unless it actually fixes itself. And yet you are one of many who say the arguments dont stand when all I do is prove wrong the many remain arguments that do not stand and mine have yet to be refuted. Its almost like repetition of that lie gives some solace to a lack of actual fact.
"This suggests that either you are an idiot who has fallen for all the propaganda coming from those with clear vested interests"
I like that someone who disagrees with you but refutes your clearly incorrect statements is an idiot. How can I seriously respond to that?
"or you are one of that group, so maybe you are not one of the idiot brexiters"
So the alternative to idiot because I dont agree with you is idiot because I dont agree with you. Not a lot of wiggle room there. I have had the pleasure of discussions with few remainers who have facts and reasons for wanting to be in the EU but weigh the costs/benefits very differently in their opinion. And I can disagree with them but respect their view because at least it makes sense. Yet most comments I respond to are the same repeated lies or mistakes often by the same people who seem factually deficient yet certain they are right and leavers are idiots.
"insulting term 'remoaner'; thus the rejoinder is 'brexidiot'. Suck it up."
I am not a fan of those terms. Brexidiot amuses me as eurosceptic did but the tribal stupidity doesnt get anywhere, discussion does. I prefer leaver/remainer although I do occasionally grit and say brexiter.
My opinion of brexit is it is a good thing. I am not a fan of racists/xenophobes regardless of them voting remain or leave. As I have said a few times (especially when the result was in) that the outward looking remain voters should band with outward looking leave voters and ignore the racists left over. There are decisions to be made and we need to keep the gov from doing something stupid like being protectionist or racist. I would prefer not having to repeatedly correct the propaganda and mistakes but unfortunately some people are determined. I would prefer you wernt one of them because you do seem to put some effort to reasoning out your comments and aiding discussion.
@ Dan 55
"The government says it requires fancy IT."
The gov always want fancy IT. Thats why this site has plenty fun poking at the govs IT blunders and fails. Hell these muppets think age verification of porn sites is a clever idea.
"The EU don't want a border"
Then the problem is solved, they can remove their demand for a hard border (it is their demand) and either a soft border (a lie) can be agreed on or a trade agreement just for Ireland to deal with the unique situation. The EU demanding a border while the UK and both halves of Ireland dont want a border puts a dent in your statement the EU dont want one.
"So, the ball is in the UK's court, they have to come up with a solution which respects the GFA and means no border will have to be implemented."
No no no and no. To assume this is the UKs issue is to be wrong. Not just possibly wrong but outright wrong. It is the EU demanding a border, it is the EU's problem. Otherwise it is solved.
@ Dan 55
"Nobody has done it in the world yet because it can't be done and some magic unspecified IT system won't change the fact that it is fundamentally impossible."
I never said it required some fancy IT. Actually what I clearly stated was it requires only the EU (as the only party to want a border) to change its mind. A cooperative soft border of very limited effect could be put in place if it made the EU feel better but their insistence on a hard border and we will pay for it is the same as Trump saying Mexico will pay for his wall. If we dont make one the EU could choose to if it can be bothered.
"Also, you don't see any other country in the world leaving their trading bloc because they claim it prevents them from trading with countries the other side of the world."
True. But then those other countries are not in the EU political union which is an aim to federalisation, with a trade block feature. Apparently if you were to ask the French PM France would probably vote the same way as we did. France used to be part of that twin engine of the EU as it was called.
@ Charlie Clark
"The UK wants to take back control its borders in order to keep those nasty immigrants out"
Sorry but that does sound pretty racist, can you please stop pretending to speak for us all. Not everyone in the UK nor leave voters hold the view you write.
@ Steve Davies 3
"Which one might that me then?"
That unfortunately is the dilemma we have been stuck with for over 20 years for any choice over the EU. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem all sang the same song and even lied to offer choice to get elected (Lab/Tory). You might dislike the choice of parties to drag us back into the EU but it would be hard to convince people anyway. If we rejoin we have to join fully which means being part of the federalisation plans and currency etc.
@ Yet Another Anonymous coward
"No but it does require that all my systems are CEmarked, meet Eu labeling, recycling and origin requirements"
Exactly, and this is why it should be the easiest sleepwalk in history of trade deals for the EU. We already comply. Lets say we relax our standards, nothing changes with our exports to the EU. Lets say we become more restrictive, we may stop making certain things to send to the EU as we dont comply. But the only ones forced to comply with EU regs is the exporters to the EU.
"You keep getting severly downvoted."
Yep. So? If your looking for exfactor or rate my todger you may be on the wrong site.
"Brexit rules means you're meant to keep quiet after losing a vote, no?"
Not at all. But Which trying to push the gov for some extra agreements may look good for Which but they have no power over the negotiations (or they can go begging to the EU themselves). Trying to insist the gov does what they want is as relevant as mumsnet demanding the gov do something, who the hell are they to make demands? And I can understand the sour grapes I am sure it would be the same if the result went the other way. And so we would have to wait until the next election to vote a party to leave the EU. And you can do the same. Next election vote a party who will reapply to the EU and sign up to the full package.
"Well, apparently we do want one, as we don't want to be in the customs union."
That seems to be a failure of simple logic. Please reread my post. We dont want to be in the political entity of the EU. The rest isnt our problem if we dont want it to be. The EU seem the only party wanting a border, so they can own that problem.
"So are we happy for things to keep coming in from Europe uncontrolled, and do we expect them to put up with the same from us?"
Do we care? Actually if there is no border Ireland will be in an envious position of being in and out of the EU gaining the benefits of both. I doubt the EU could tolerate it for long so its in their interests to figure out some acceptable trade deal.
"If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why are we leaving the customs union"
We are leaving the EU. This is not a trade block or common market this is an interfering political union with its own designs on its own future that do not match ours. The fact that it all comes as one big package means we are leaving because we finally got a choice on EU membership and vote leave. Apparently the president of France expects the French would do the same given the choice. Be proud, we are leading with democracy.
"* "So we can go out and form our own trade deals", except that's meaningless for both parties if goods are still moving freely"
Actually no. We do not have control over our own trade tariffs while in the EU. That changes when out of the EU regardless of goods moving freely. We cannot make our own trade deals while in the EU. That changes when out of the EU regardless of goods moving freely. The gov has already stated it wants frictionless trade and so leaving the EU for those advantages + goods moving freely sounds like better than we could have expected.
"what's to stop German cars coming via Britain / British steel coming via Germany"
Why are we wanting to stop this? The EU does but the UK doesnt. The UK just wants to be free of the EU interference and restrictions. Getting out and doing that again would be a win. Remember the EU wanted to stop Chinese steel from entering using high tariffs, the UK disagreed with that because it makes us poorer to ramp up tariffs. See Trump/EU trade war posturing.
"You've missed the bit where we have said that we will be able to diverge from their standards?"
That is a good point but this is where the EU have it so easy it should be a sleepwalk. For example the trade deal they did with Canada does not require Canada to bend over and take whatever the EU feels like giving at the time. Instead it works on a wonderful system (very old system developed over centuries) of trade. To export to any country the item/service must meet the customer countries standards, and we already do. And we import to our countries standards. This works world wide and the reason the EU exists, to trade with others. So surely it should be capable of coming to the agreement of accepting to their standards and us to ours. Then the extra negotiations go on top of that (e.g. they want x, we want y).
The country of course can diverge to our own standards which dont need to match the world (because the world is full of differing standards) and yet still the age old tradition of trade could continue.
That the EU struggles with this is not a shining beacon of hope for their abilities.
@ Loyal Commenter
"Meanwhile, in the real world, where the Good Friday Agreement, to which we are legal signatories, dictates that there is no hard border on the Island of Ireland"
Awesome. So go tell the EU. Read my previous post, it sums this problem up beautifully.
"brexit negotiations have come to a halt because UK politicians continue to demand a land of magical unicorns where they think they can dictate that the other 27 EU states"
The demands so far have been money, Irish border and sovereignty invading rights for their court and all of those came from the EU. The UK handed over article 50. So yes someone wants unicorns but so far it isnt us.
"Which they clearly aren't going to do."
This I agree with you on. I cannot imagine the EU pulling itself together to get a coherent clue over what they want to do in time for brexit. My view on that is to wave goodbye to the EU and get on doing something worth our time. However if somehow this gov pulls it off (and I dont have much faith in that) and gets the EU to actually negotiate then I will be impressed. But so far I dont credit the EU with that level of competence.
Is this the new eurosceptic? Please tell me there is a new insult. It was so funny last time when we were called eurosceptics for not wanting to join the Euro and then when we were proved right that word seemed to vanish, along with the those so certain they were right. Oh those were the days
@ Joe Werner
"Sorry: no customs union means custom control, means a border. Simple, innit?"
Sure is. Neither side of Ireland want a border, the land doesnt lend itself to being bordered (unless we look at a Berlin wall suggestion, the UK wants frictionless trade... its real simple. Its not our problem. A simple trade deal allowing Ireland to get along fine could be made, if the EU was willing. So its the EU's problem.
"Wasn't that the sales point? "Taking back control of your borders"?"
Actually I love this as the sales pitch because as I said- Ireland border isnt our problem. We dont want one so exercising our control of our borders we dont need to make one (or we could lie which is also a good approach). The EU is also in charge of their own borders and if they wish to make one there is nothing we can do about it. Ireland can be divided by the EU if the EU want.
You have to be joking. The negotiations have yet again come to another stop as the EU again attempts to dictate a border in Ireland and demand we pay for it (think Trumps wall). For a trade negotiation political entity it so far has had the easiest trade negotiation going (we already comply with their standards and want frictionless trade) and seem to be royally screwing it up with their amusing but fantasy demands. Then they stomp their feet that we wont just give in, negotiate some more then rinse and repeat.
This isnt a negotiation. A negotiation has at least 2 willing parts working to a common goal. The EU is making demands and if they dont negotiate we owe them nothing. They can shove off and if they want a border make their own.
To again take its ideas from Trump it looks like the EU wants to be poorer. Trump decides he wants to start a trade war by increasing tariffs making Americans poorer, an action he seems to be being slated for. Yet the EU in a moment of genius have decided that if Trump is going to make the US poorer the EU will respond in kind and make EU members poorer with their own tariffs. I like the analogy of them choosing to throw rocks in their own harbour so choosing to throw rocks in our own harbour. Looks like we are getting out at the right time.
"Could the solution be for the government to throw money at the problem? £500million is a lot. Give dozens of £5million+ grants to researchers and for pre-production work. Choose a few off-the-wall ones while they're at it. Most would be wasted but if even one hits the nail on the head, it's money all the way to the bank (and foreign licence fees)"
Why is the solution to charge everyone which as you say will be mostly wasted? Surely the solution is to let people choose to invest in whatever solutions they want to try even if its a more efficient fossil fuel engine. That way the only money wasted is by those choosing to try, people get a working solution compared to some failed half arsed gov approved garbage, and since the money to the bank would be private profit anyway they keep their gains.
@ Gravis Ultrasound
"I remember once perceiving Europe as becoming more and more liberal....everybody would eventually be able to express themselves without governmental interference."
Liberal seems to mean something different over here. The translation being- thinking the 'right' way, or- only sticking to 'approved' words and topics, or- government good businesses baaaahd.
Re: Free speech
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - born 1906, killed circa 2010 by social media."
Social media has made it quicker, cheaper and easier to post a view or opinion to more people worldwide. Its governments trying to kill such freedom.
Re: "our contribution to the overall health of the public conversation".
@ Stuart Castle
"This is the basic message Trump used, and also the basic message that the Brexit campaigners used. They also provided a nice big bogeyman (immigration) for people to blame. The remain campaign and Hillary Clinton both pretty much said "Things are generally OK, but some things could improve""
But thats not quite what happened was it? Hillary insulted the lower educated as trump supporters by reasoning that trump supporters were the lower educated. Capturing that group Trump made the inclusive message that yes he does represent a large portion of America that Hillary just rejected. I still maintain that Trumps win could have been due to the Democrats dictating the winner but the Republicans deferring to democracy. The Democrats had their own Trump (Bernie), the outsider with large claims.
Brexit seems very complicated with good reasons to leave based on trade, economy, sovereignty, democracy, immigration, etc. Yet as you point out the argument was claimed to be about immigration (a limit set by remain). This is probably because Cameron supported brexit and accepted it wasnt a problem before the referendum, Carney and Osborne argued against economic recovery they have and are still performing and they have little ground to argue on sovereignty. So they ran a project fear (the official leave campaign sucked bad too) of negativity while leave poked holes in the EU. Even the staunch EU supporting media was accepting it was broken, but we should stay to reform it.
"It's also pushing moderate voters to the right"
I have noticed for some time that the left wing has stopped discussing and stopped debating. If you disagree you are either racist, xenophobe, intolerant, homophobe, transphobe, evil, hitler, etc. My way is the right way and any other opinion is probably one of the above. On the right there is discussion, and not always good discussion. But do you listen to someone who says I am right and everyone else is evil, or do you listen to a reasoned argument?
Re: quite the contrary
@ Charlie Clark
"It didn't have much direct effact on world oil prices because the US has a law that prevents oil from being exported"
Should I take it as you agree with me and have no response to the point so you skip it? I wont argue if it was fracking or China reducing demand, I dont really care and both can be attributable. For example the mass importer of oil didnt need to export its newly available fracked supply to reduce its dependence on imported oil. The point which you clearly missed or have no response to was-
reduced the value of oil so Russia devalued to match the real world value of the country (which was less) while Saudi bled cash propping up their country but actually reducing its accumulated wealth to appear richer than it is
"But, hey, as with all populists why bother with the details?"
Try addressing the point instead of nitpicking contestable details. Or if you have nothing to add dont feel bad. You can continue in your beliefs and opinions and I wont think any worse of you. But if you put them on here expect them to be challenged if they dont add up.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Dan 55
"Italy would just do what it always did, devalue and carry on as before, until it's time to devalue again."
something they have any power over new they dont have control of their currency. The actions of the Eurozone from this recession should at least give people pause over how great the currency is. It should have pushed the EU to make massive reforms to the currency and they probably should forgive Greece or at the very least chop the debt down to something they can repay. I dont know if the solution is federalising the EU (and I dont care as long as we are not part of that) or if it is to scrap the EU and go back to a trade block (I would be happy with us participating) but as it is I dont see much hope for the people in the EU in the poorer countries.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Charlie Clark
"Do you disagree that the ECB is the official bank of the EU?
Most certainly. "
Re: quite the contrary
@ Charlie Clark
"Greece would most certainly have had to go to the IMF for a bailout without the Euro"
Yes, as it did while in the Euro too. But out of the Euro it would have defaulted and be set up with a repayment plan it can afford, something the EU has refused to do or accept. The EU bought Greece.
"Italy has had a discount on interest rates since joining the single currency and even more so since 2011"
So? Feel free to make a point here.
"You seem to ignore Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia's experience of adopting the currency despite the problems."
Ignoring what? I dont mention those countries but should I? By problems I assume you mean the Euro?
"Typos, factual inaccuracies and false comparisons all in one sentence! Your handler won't be pleased."
You have a handler? I am just a guy at a computer. What does your handler do for you?
"the US doesn't"
Are you seriously claiming the US doesnt have fiscal transfers? Please leave a yes or no answer so it can be clearly identified if you are trying to lie or if you are truly believing this.
"Unemployment in France, Italy and Greece was high in 2008. Again, as I noted, the lack of wage restraint and economic reforms caused unemployment in these countries before the crisis"
I am starting to think you really are just trolling now. Greek unemployment rate shot up from the recession. You say it was high but please compare then to even now. You will find a recession happened about 2008 and it was the reactions to it that which is clearly visible between the US, UK and EU.
"Or, if a high currency caused unemployment then why does Germany have low unemployment?"
I see why you are confused. The Euro is undervalued for Germany. It is overvalued for the poor countries including Greece. Please keep asking your questions like this and then the problems with your assumptions can be addressed.
"Currency devaluations are generally followed by inflation"
Yes!!! That is true. Not only is it true.. it is the point! The value of the country fell (corrected) because of the recession and quite simply the value of the country is not the same and needs to come back down to a realistic rate. A good example is fracking and Russia/Saudi- fracking reduced the value of oil so Russia devalued to match the real world value of the country (which was less) while Saudi bled cash propping up their country but actually reducing its accumulated wealth to appear richer than it is. Note the falling of the UK currency causing inflation which is giving the BoE good reason and opportunity to raise interest rates back up instead of ultra and unsustainable low.
"Which is why Lithuania chose internal devaluation prior to joining the single currency"
It did cause emigration which definitely resolves certain unemployment issues.
"But what is your point? France elected its most ardently pro-European president ever last year."
You might want to back away from that comment. France elected a pro EU but on the platform of fundamental reform President with the NF second. The French president admitting that given the freedom to vote the French would probably vote out. As I said, back away from France as your example.
"Italy needs economic, legal and political reform and won't see any improvement without it."
Yup. Leaving the Eurozone would help with that too. But as you point out the short term pain may be too scary for a long term remedy.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Charlie Clark
"Er, only for accounting purposes. As a suprantional organisation the EU doesn't have a currency only member states do."
So joining the EU doesnt require the moving to the Euro (or at least moving toward that aim)? The EU central bank being the ECB of the currency Euro? With the UK and Denmark having exemptions while others are obliged to join the Euro once they meet the criteria.
Do you disagree that the ECB is the official bank of the EU? Are you being serious or just yanking my chain now? If its the former I have no response but if its the latter, well done you had me thinking you believed that.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Loyal Commenter
"Either way, just like other prominent leavers, you are lying to people"
I wont accuse you of lying. You might just not know-
Re: quite the contrary
@ Loyal Commenter
"The UK doesn't contribute a single penny to the ECB (i.e. the Euro)"
So the Euro isnt the official currency of the EU? I assume your happy to accept we are a net contributor to the EU. And the ECB being the official bank for the EU? And I hope your not contesting the UK contribution was used to bail out Greece?
Lets see where you are having a problem and see if we can unpick it
Re: quite the contrary
@ Charlie Clark
"The same could be said of the dollar: California is much more expensive than Missisippi and has no transfer arrangements. But the advantages of a single currency within a single market are that it increases the efficiency of the single market by reducing currency risk."
Advantages of a single currency? Tell that to Greece, Italy, etc. And yes there are transfer arrangements, they pay federal tax's which redistributes from richer to poorer states while allowing California to implement policies which are making the place more expensive and driving people out.
If you think a single currency over a large area doesnt increase risk then I will go have a laugh for a while and skip that topic with you. The risk is greater the larger the area and so requires support for those going through different positions of the business cycle. Also to level out the problem of the overvalued and undervalued currency issue the Euro economies are suffering. Scotland is richer because of its union with England, because it is subsidised by England. Alone it would have a lower currency and we would have a higher one. But to mutual benefit we have a union. The EU has the same currency but not the support structure required for scale. It doesnt have that reduction in currency risk at all.
"Anyway economically the comments of undervaluing or overvaluing are incorrect: those countries that didn't exercise wage restraint simply priced themselves out of the market."
Undervaluing and overvaluing are extremely valid. If Germany leaves the Euro which way would their currency go? (shooting up). If Greece leaves which way will their currency go? (down). Having a currency too high is what pushed high unemployment in the Eurozone and the ECB is struggling to devalue the currency to fix the economic problem. People being given less money than before is a serious problem economically while devaluing the currency has the same real effect on the take home pay but less damage economically.
"The bigger problem is the ECB's monetary policy is that by holding interest rates down not only does this lead to a transfer from savers to debtors"
And they were late to the party. The US recovered from the recession, the UK recovered from the recession, the EU held off until it was desperate to avoid deflation. The US is unwinding QE, the UK now looking to increase interest rates, the EU years behind recovery needs to lower its currency further to match the poor economies but higher for the rich economies.
"For example, Italy's total debt would lead to default at some point and this, in turn would lead to austerity imposed by the creditors"
And while being in the Euro Italy has had no growth. It has been stunted. Greece should have defaulted but instead the EU bought the country. Greece cannot repay, that isnt debatable they just cannot. On their own they would default and reduce the value of their currency. Instead they are now trapped and screwed. Italy got lucky by bailing out the banks (got around the rules) to the dismay of Germany. But Italy is still an issue. And politically have moved anti-euro.
Re: quite the contrary
"Oooh, I don't anyone was predicting that..."
I added a little mustard. According to Tusk it was western civilisation that was to end and to Junker the EU could break up because or brexit.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Loyal Commenter
"Lets start with the stability of the Euro..." and "It looks like the Euro has been holding its own pretty well, so lets strike that one off"
Your link was to GBP not EUR. But my comment wasnt of the stability of the Euro but how it is in crisis. The point of a currency is to support economic activity, and the EUR has caused massive harm to economic activity to a number of its members. The currency is both undervalued and overvalued depending on which member state you are in but had no fiscal transfer system to support the overall area and so is extremely vulnerable without considering its years behind economic recovery.
"Now lets go with the assertion that the GBP is propping up the Euro. The GBP is not linked to the ECB which manages the Euro, so I don't know where you're getting that from."
Dont worry I will help. The UK is a net contributor. Also Cameron got a worthless agreement with the EU not to use our contribution to bail out Greece (worthless because they then did it anyway).
"On the day of the referendum result, the GBP dropped in value by 20%"
And you are welcome. It is good news isnt it. The BoE and treasury have been trying to do this since 2008 and yet the result of that vote caused it to happen! I am not saying it wouldnt happen without the vote only that the timing was caused by it. However if you want to credit the vote with good news feel free.
"It hasn't recovered"
Are you sure?
"When (if) we do finally jump off that cliff, it's going to drop a lot further"
Are you certain? It is uncertainty causing the fall and since the world wont end as remainers predicted and it is now down to the choices of the government it is a 50/50 prediction.
"We won't have the GBP we used to have. If we're lucky we'll have 70p in the pound."
Against which currency? And that would be different. I wonder if the EU will have recovered from the recession by then. Or if they will still be devaluing the EUR to try and get people back into work.
Re: quite the contrary
@ Rich 11
"Wow, I never knew that! Thanks for clearing it up"
Then that is both you and Pen-y-gors informed. Or if you thought my comment was directed at you then I assume you are also Pen-y-gors? Or are you just chomping on the bit to join this discussion?
"Now I can be confident that the economy won't take a hit"
Interesting you say that, why? Pen-y-gors seemed to be suggesting we wouldnt be able to afford anything and we will be reduced to eating gravel and leaves. Yet even the remain assessments of leaving with their pessimistic assumptions expect continued growth.
"Oh, how I wish I'd voted for Brexit now. But I missed my chance"
You dont need to feel bad about it leave won the referendum. What you can do is make a decision. You can ignore events and let them take their course, you can blindly stand by remain or leave without any idea why, or you can look into the situation and decide on the direction you would like the country to go and then consider that in the next election.
"All I can do to make up for my mistake is to worship at the feet of Johnson and Gove instead."
You can do if you want but I cant say I rate them. My suggestion would be not to treat this like XFactor and instead look at the realities of the situation.
Re: quite the contrary
"we will have a wonderful WTO trade agreement with the whole world, with zero tariffs on everything, so we can import food from Africa, India and Asia at prices far below local production costs."
And below EU food costs.
"Not that we'll have any money to pay for it of course."
Why? The EU doesnt handle our money supply. They use the Euro, that currency in crisis that caused wide economic damage to the EU members and the GBP was being used to prop up. The currency being bailed out by other currencies to keep it going. When we leave the EU we will continue to have the GBP as we had before the EU even existed!
@ Duffy Moon
"eliminate the benefit trap and much poverty by scrapping the disastrous UC and instigating UBI"
I am not convinced by UBI because I expect it will just raise prices to account for the new 'zero' income (whatever UBI is) and I would want to see some costings for it. I do hope it works though and I hope we let others try first to see where the problems are before we implement it. Its an interesting idea I have never been sold on but do like.
UC is a good idea but how on earth can it be implemented with such a complicated welfare system that we have? Add politicians to the mix and a snowballs chance in hell looks more promising.
Re: Stifled or not?
@ John Brown (no body)
In a similar vein this article about the development of aircraft and the freedom allowing what we have today vs starting the venture without such freedom-
The freedom to experiment brings advancements.
"Because competition drives efficiency, by inefficient companies being liquidated or taken over. That's not a good plan for countries."
Actually it is. If all we have is inefficient companies being propped up by unending funds we end up with a 3rd world country. It is a good job 90% of the population is not working in the fields to grow enough food to barely survive on. As it stands we import a huge portion because we cannot grow enough here and who would want to? We outsourced a lot of dirty and hard manufacturing work while doing the R&D which is cleaner and worth more. The low value work of manufacturing chips and parts then assemble into a mobile phone is not done in the west, it isnt worth our time. Yet it is that innovation which has the UK at full employment.
"Sorry, you aren't being very efficient, so Germany is going to take your country over"
Which country produces everything they have? I cant think of one but probably some middle of nowhere, 3rd world without vehicles or any semblance of modern life. If that is what you like then thats up to you. Personally I like my computer with parts from around the world and development from the world, food from around the world, cars designed and manufactured around the world. Otherwise you are arguing for protectionism. And when Trump did that against China's steel he caused a negative effect of the economy.
Re: I'm not sure that targeting specific companies is the way forward.
"The first is standard tax avoidance (zero sympathy for them there)"
No sympathy for following the law. That opens up a can of worms.
"second is that they do make very good underlying profits but what they do is reinvest to grow"
Oh no! The business in investing in building the business which employs more people and is the point of making a business (to grow it to serve more people). If you dont like businesses investing in themselves then I can only recommend state controlled countries. Try N.Korea.
How can providing more of what people want, following the law and being successful now be seen as some kind of bad thing?
Surely the solution to this lefty PC problem is for these applicants to suddenly become trans-race (or whatever its called)? What about trans-species? Does google fill its quota on the various animals?
PC- proof that the left like to divide.
"The market system may result in an expression of ethics - if enough people make purchasing decisions based on ethical criteria"
The purchase is part of the equation. There is also the need for a business to think ahead so it will still have product to sell. The objective in poorer countries is to survive and so they build for energy, food, water etc but rich countries lean more towards a cleaner environment.
"Governmental "dictating of direction" is, one dares to hope, often ethically driven."
Unfortunately this is often not the case. Often it is driven for short term electoral gain and pleasing groups. For example Labour pandered to the green voters and has pushed up energy costs and caused a threat to our supply. Yet even now removing subsidy for failed tech and non-solutions is difficult. The congestion charge for London was tied to the pollution yet sadiq khan is against electric vehicles because he will lose out on revenue from this. Corbyn doesnt ethically agree with a nuclear deterrent, yet will still build trident because the unions want the jobs/cash (he just wont put nukes on it). The government picks winners and almost always chooses badly costing taxpayers.
A good example would be Tata steel shutting down a dirty virgin steel furnace which is old technology and polluting. Not something for a rich country with high energy and labour costs plus environmental regulations up the waazoo. The good move by the gov to not save it was ethical for the environment and pushing out a dirty industry. Yet labour would have tried to save it due to the 'ethics' of protecting jobs in a loss making industry.
"Where did the imperative for engineering the diesel emissions tests come from? Dictated direction introduced an arguably pointless test, but the market system led to the production of popular cars that gamed it."
Very true. Bad government regulation to balance with bad government regulation caused business to find a way around the problem. The market complied with the regulation while providing what people wanted (A to B transport). As you say the cars were popular and defeated an arguably pointless test.
Btw I do want to say good comment. You definitely hit on some good points to think about compared to the previous reply to my comment.
Nice of you to ignore the whole comment and write a short and pointless response that ignores everything said in the comment. Just so you can say 'whataboutary!'.
"Which fails, miserably, to address ethical issues"
Maybe you can explain why? I have explained why it does so instead of 'punch and judy' how about a thought through response? I would agree that no system is perfect but the market system seems far more capable at ethics than the dictating of direction which I point out has been the cause of much damage.
"They're making more money and their customers are getting what they want. There's nothing wrong with that. So why do I feel nervous?"
Because when people get what they want and this invariably comes from competition where a new upstart can use past advancements without having to do as much leg work it makes businesses uneasy. When the barriers for entry start to fall the incumbents worry. Especially if it delivers what people want.
"We're getting close to the point where almost anyone could potentially affect the behaviour of a significant proportion of humanity"
It is awful isnt it! For example the raspberry pi, a cheap product that people want for varying reasons and skill levels which lowers the entry bar for learning to use a computer but also for media systems/servers and god knows what else. I would guess television would be the same problem for newspapers and the internet certainly so for both. Look at the disruption caused by netflix and such. And the truly terrifying part is of course- the customer gets what they want. Oh the woe.
"We've democratised scale using tech. I don't think we've got our heads round that yet."
Democracy is scary. People dont necessarily do what others want (I am sure the internets vast content of porn is an issue for puritan types for example). People choosing instead of being told. Information flowing freely instead of from 'approved' sources. People picking the winners by actually wanting the product or service.
"Now the cloud has commoditised scale that could be weaponised by your marketing teams"
Get on the tin foil. We now have access to more information than before. Want something? Look not only at the seller description or the marketing information but also reviews. People have been moving away from adverts and the more they are pushed the further people move away.
"If products are successful, we demonstrably often fail to address scale issues later. Bitcoin mining is projected to require as much energy as Italy by the end of the year. Car fumes are now producing dangerously toxic air in major cities, which software engineers addressed by faking a fix. Data centres are operating at only around 10 per cent energy efficiency, which doesn't support our projected growth. Not having a scalable plan for a bit of new tech that would be beneficial to all is short sighted"
2 of these things are non-issues and one is because of this daft idea of ethically dictating the direction. Governments pushed people to diesel as the cleaner fuel, then realised they were wrong. On top of that they punish and attack Co2 output and then complain about the side effects of actually harmful toxic fumes. Both the result of detailed planning of the future without knowing the future.
The bitcoin and energy efficiency is a non-topic at best. This is why we have a market system, as resources reduce in availability the cost goes up. Maybe it ends bitcoin, maybe a solution is worked out. As efficiency becomes necessary it will be implemented or the users will be squeezed out. What works continues and what doesnt falls by the wayside.
@ Voland's right hand
"Cut off from what. Share what you are smoking."
Answered by- "2. Eu does not have the lax attitude of USA to "organic" monopolies".
"Like it or not - it is the biggest single market economy on the planet."
With falling global wealth in a political union currently suffering multiple crises one of which is being years behind economic recovery.
"Eu commission says jump, the answer is "how high". Then you do it a few times. Smiling while you are doing too - it is good for public relations."
And such is the mistake of the EU to believe that. The US didnt. China isnt. The US has told the EU to jump as it is sick of doing all the military spending for NATO. Obama claimed we were at the back of the queue for a trade deal and the EU was negotiating one. Trump canned the EU deal and offered to put us to the front of the queue. The UK was the first European (western too I think) country to join China's world bank. The others then followed. Public relations with the powerful countries of the world seem more important than jumping when the EU tries to dictate it.
"I always find it funny listening to the 3 blind mice and the one under the command of the potted plants. My thought always is: "Have you opened some statistics lately?""
I dont have much confidence in the gov doing this right but statistically we still seem to be doing the right thing by leaving the EU.
But back to the point, if the EU is ramping up regulation and doesnt think the rest of the world measures up then that will be more protectionism aka cutting themselves off.
If the EU puts up barriers because nobody else is 'good enough' the people within the EU will find themselves further cut off. And as Junker talks about reciprocating in a trade war with the US of rising tariffs. I am sure this will make some protectionists happy but the EU has just ramped up its data protection requirements to the benefit of many a bureaucrat.
Re: Who determines who is a terrorist ?
@ Yet Another Anonymous coward
"Fortunately once free of the Orwellian Euro superstate we will have the wise guidance of Amber Rudd to protect us"
But unlike the EU we will be able to vote the government out!
"Free of any interference from some court of human rights."
Are you saying the court of human rights is going to step in on this issue? And isnt that a separate institution from the EU?
No just no. This isnt legally enforced but if you dont do it we will. That is setting laws without having to write them down. This is not a good direction for any government to travel. Off the books laws are shady on their own. But assuming some benevolent government to create this, it opens up the field to more malevolent control under future governments.