Posts by codejunky 7125 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
@captain veg
"So far as I can tell from inspection of your post you didn't actually mention any other benefits."
I will list them then. And skipping the covid jab discussion we are already having-
> Wasnt forced to participate in the covid(Euro) bailout fund
> The UK acted much swifter in support of Ukraine.
@Dan 55
"Well they would have opted out in the same way the UK did or Hungary did."
Your simple search should have enlightened you a little. They didnt opt out at the start, when the EU cocked up so badly they were watching vaccine be manufactured in their borders to be exported, all because the EU failed to order in time.
The EU did so badly that some countries opted out afterwards as your search discovered. You may also remember Germany breaking the EU agreement of not negotiating with suppliers the EU was negotiating with. All because the EU did a poor job at it.
Lets entertain your hypothetical version. The UK remains and while every member caves to the pressure to show solidarity our government is more competent and refuses. Somehow the UK is better run than every member country and refuses the pressure to drop our own plans (like Germany did) and throw our lot in with the EU. I dont have such faith in our government but that is what it would take. So-
As happened in reality the UK orders vaccine, the EU does as it did and throws its toys out of the pram as it did. We know the EU threatened the UK and so the UK offered to share some of the production we ordered. We also know they stole vaccine to be exported to Australia and performed raids to find the mythical vaccine being exported that was destined for the EU. So inside the EU they wouldnt even need to argue with the UK, we are in the EU and for the greater good of the EU they would just take as much as they wanted and there would be nothing we could do.
Reality stumps ideology. Sorry
@Paul Crawford
"The reasoning against Brexit was about economics"
Leave too.
"And about less red tape - for all the claims of the brexiteers that red tape would be reduced, it is of course the opposite as each and every regulation the UK makes that differs from the EU means companies now have two sets of standards to comply with, not one, if they want to keep trading with a block many times that of the UK."
The consequence being increased domestic red tape even if trading internally or with anybody outside the EU too. Hell it was amusing hearing the French president visiting a village and telling them they dont need to comply with EU labelling rules. The stupidity of a guy being fined for not littering but for not having a license to take his dinner wrappers home with him.
"That is why I listed them. If you want to do a trade deal you have to reach agreement with an entity of sufficient size and benefit to make it worth doing."
Aka a country. Even selling the absolutely vital and critical vaccine to save lives was too much hassle for a manufacturer in Scotland that they decided against negotiating with the EU and just went to the countries directly instead.
"The EU was exactly that point, to have common trade and regulations so it could weigh against the USA and the likes of China that are many times the size of any other country."
That was the theory.
@DJO
"How many time do we have to tell you. The vaccine arrangements were made while the UK was still subject to all EU regulations. Brexit made absolutely no difference, we or any EU country could have done exactly what we did."
And yet at no point has a remainer managed to explain how the situation would have worked. The highly theoretical 'we or any EU country' ordering it themselves doesnt work very well but even worse is the reaction of the EU when they screwed up and would have stolen. Hence you can keep telling because you are wrong.
Brexit did make the difference for no reason other than making it politically difficult for the gov to order through the EU. Thankfully.
@TVU
"^ I agree and I am still waiting to see these most wondrous tangible benefits that we were promised."
As soon as we left the UK was reaping the benefits of covid jabs, amusingly made in countries in the EU who unfortunately had to wait at the back of the queue due to the EU commission not ordering them in time. Wasnt forced to participate in the covid(Euro) bailout fund. The UK acted much swifter in support of Ukraine.
"Indeed, I am still waiting for my free live baby unicorn and for the free crock of gold at the end of the rainbow for every household in the United Kingdom."
Remainer claims not delivered at not attributable to leavers.
@Paul Crawford
"Yes, it was ideologically driven"
I am surprised this is still used as reasoning against brexit when it remain was about being 'more European'. The ideology that we must all conform or be labelled racist and xenophobic somehow.
"it was driven by those somehow imagining that it is sill the 1940s and the UK is a big player in the world"
We are (as you partially point out in your edit) but also why is it leave voters thinking its the old world when the EU was designed on the old world of trade blocs? Noting the world moved on, absolute poverty fell drastically globally as trade opened up outside of closed blocs.
I note you compare the USA, China and the EU. The USA and China are countries and the EU is an organisation made up of multiple countries which is why the UK is 6th in GDP compared with countries, not organisations.
@AC
Timing is everything, Here is how they get their relative poverty numbers they call absolute poverty-
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/absolute-poverty-numbers-prove-a-couple-of-things
Apparently even the relative numbers are wrong as the poverty measurement is before welfare anyway.
I have hope that you are a different AC than the straw man one, you have held a better conversation
@AC
"Yes, one needs to use the right terms."
There are of course some people in absolute poverty, such as severe mental issues or severe addiction but outside of that absolute poverty is effectively eliminated. Unfortunately the media and politicians like to redefine poverty to mean inequality.
@AC
From your link their definition of absolute poverty-
Absolute poverty measures how many people this year cannot afford a set standard of living. The Department for Work and Pensions currently defines it based on the living standard an average income could buy in the year ending in March 2011. If your income is 40% below this, after adjusting for rising prices since then, you are classed as living in absolute poverty.
So their version of absolute poverty is the average income minus 40% and if you are under that after adjusting prices upward, That is relative. If we are all billionaires (not Zimbabwe version) there will be people falling below average - 40% adjust prices upwards. That isnt absolute.
@AC
"Ah. I thought that was why you provided that link."
I provided it because it is pretty interesting to anyone having the 'poor' discussion. If the top few percent relatively are arguing they are poor those with less dont react well to it. So when the top few percent are arguing they are poor I cant imagine the rest could agree. 'Relative' poverty can never be solved unless everyone is equally poor. Actual poverty can be solved and has made great progress in being solved.
"I realise how lucky I have been in life"
So back to my post you responded to out of context where I point out the workers did get the benefits of the productivity growth since 1940's and leads to our privileged position where we dont really have absolute poverty to worry about in our countries (I am UK)-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2024/03/15/sanders_four_day_week/#c_4830204
@AC
"They are not conflictimg statements. They both highlight socioeconomic disparities, but from slightly different angles."
They are entirely conflicting statements. One is about relative poverty, one is about absolute poverty. One is about the level of comfort and the other about survival. One can never be solved without trashing everyones way of life the other can be solved and serious progress has been made. To say those are slightly different angles does not sound realistic.
"Also, by "the wealthy" I actually meant you specifically."
Noting that you say you are in the global 1% (I am not) you might wanna reread that. Then reread my comments and understand the difference between relative poverty (levels of comfort) vs actual poverty (life vs death)
@AC
"No. It's the wealthy thinking the poor are not poor because they are not starving to death thatI take unbrage with."
And
"Enjoy life at the top. Just stop thinking it's like that for the majority of people on this big wide planet."
Those are two conflicting statements. You have so far been complaining about relative poverty (a benefit of the productivity growth being discussed) and I have been trying to hammer home the reality, absolute poverty (hence replying with the link and you being in the top 1%).
You have until now been arguing the first quote while I have been trying to explain to you the second.
@AC
"Mine says 1%. But I already knew that. And therefore I don't make fatuous statements about people shouldn't be considered poor unless they are starving."
Wow thats lofty! I am in the top 5% and know the difference between relative and absolute poverty. I also recognise the lifestyle has vastly improved since the 1940's due to productivity growth providing that abundance and effectively eliminating absolute poverty in rich countries. I am not sure which part of that you take issue with.
It seems you are clinging to relative poverty which is the preserve of the rich. The wealthy thinking they are poor because someone has more than them.
"Charity? I'm betting you don't."
You lost your bet.
@AC
"Clearly a comment by a 20%er.
Nice to be up-on-high. (But even then, most are probably only a few pay-checks away from sleeping in a dumpster.)"
20% of what? Have a go-
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
You do know that people being only a few pay checks from sleeping in a dumpster is pretty damn rich in the world.
@cmdrklarg
"Agreed. Now imagine how much better it would be if people's wages had increased at the same rate instead of going to make the owner's wallets fatter."
Wages as in the amount of money handed over? The minimum wage in the 40's (Sanders choice of year) was apparently less than 50 cent. That of course is just the numerical value on the piece of paper, would you try to suggest the standard of living has not improved since then? You mention wallets but the population seems to have grown in girth. Plentiful and abundant food, water, communication, transport, etc. I guess people could be banned from spending any money they earn so they accumulate it but that might not make them much better off.
"Next thing you know workers will demand that they have money left after buying bread & water from the company store! Damn communists!"
You are mistaken. The long lines for bread were disappointed as there was none left. Unlike the vile capitalists with a variety of different breads and bread makers making a strong supply
@ArrZarr
"Oh excellent. Somehow I just knew that this is another subject you'd have an awful opinion on.
Why do you feel that people should just be miserable all the time?"
What is your confusion? What awful opinion and who do I think should be miserable? Did you reply to the correct comment?
"This seems fair enough, but the text of the letter to the operators reveals what the real beef is: complaints to MPs from residents angry about the installation of new broadband infrastructure."
I thought the complaint was a lack of internet speed or whatever? That connectivity jabbering that goes on demanding more coverage of better speeds etc.
@heyrick
"What? That I have an ID card and that the police... oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You don't have police that actually police any more do you?"
No we dont I agree. But stopping you to see if you have a permission slip to leave your house, that is both freaking hilarious and terrifyingly bad. I think even V for vendetta had a scene of a character out after curfew being stopped by such 'enforcers'.
@heyrick
Maybe, just maybe, a little event in the middle of the 20th century demonstrated the dangers of holding too much unnecessary information?
twice during lockdown (yes, I have the paper that says I'm going to work...)
The irony of these two statements in a single comment. Its a shame the ID cards dont stop people from travelling through Europe, entering France and then making dangerous attempts to get across the channel. And noting history I would have to agree with the previous poster with- "Nothing irrational about paranoia of a mega everything-here database"
It seems the UK immigration system has never recovered from the open border policy that flooded the country. That the country for some reason is unable to remove law breakers who come here is ridiculous. I am not surprised our immigration system doesnt work correctly, it doesnt even know how many people have entered the country.
I get the feeling the writer of this article isnt a fan of Trump. As he has defied the lawfare effort to be (as we already knew and the reason for the lawfare) the republican presidential candidate will you possibly be on your knees screaming 'noooooooooooooo' if he wins? If so can you please record it for our amusement.
Wasnt the conclusion that the security services violated the constitution by effectively making social media platform policy last election? Musk buying Twitter and releasing the twitter files changed another conspiracy theory into a fact. I wonder if thats why Trump considers Facebook a problem?
@AC
"Amirite?"
No. Actually I responded as I did to naive because he sounds like the people over there that I know. When I was there the dislike for their government as sell outs and not representing the people was in the open and their support for Wilders as a last hope to stop the country falling into increasing madness. It wasnt extremist opinions pushing them that way, it was their country being dragged down and the gov not seemingly doing much to stop it.
Reports in The Netherlands say the government has even set up a task force dubbed "project Beethoven"
So government create a problem. Government set up a task force (likely to cost more) to put a patch over the problem. Probably to cause another problem. And this isnt a shot at the Dutch, this is government.
@Roland6
"Yes we don’t get one funded via the EU, which means any chip foundry we build will be in competition with those the EU are funding, so potentially we do get a polluting foundry and so does an EU member - double green misery."
It doesnt make much difference if it was funded by the UK or EU it is a glorious way to spaff a load of tax payer money to try to compete with a much cheaper and better producer. For the UK the smart move is not to play and with the small amount of funding announced by the gov it seems we are not playing that game.
"So the sub text to my point 8s that the UK has to decide on what its niches are and invest accordingly. However, we do need to diversify away from financial services…"
That we can agree on.
"Yet whilst in the EU, the UK’s non-EU exports grew to the point where they exceeded our EU “exports”…"
And now we are outside the EU we can still do so.
"Those are wholly due to the ineptitude of “British” management and their equally inept trade unions and labour relations their inept management practises nurtured."
Which of course is not exclusive to "British" but is due to a lack of competition.
@elsergiovolador
"If you don't own the means of production, you are depending on those countries. They may be relatively friendly today but that is not a given."
That is true. I rely on the farmer, trucker, and god knows how many others only for my food. As a country we depend on other countries for a vast quantity of production. We could own the means of production for everything we have but that takes us back to a peasantry time, Even N.Korea isnt that crazy and depends on the outside. In this case even if we have fabs in this country we still need to import and depend on others for the technology and resources required for these fabs to make anything.
On the flip side the chance that we will be at war with the US, EU and Asia at the same time is pretty low. Just one of those would wipe us out if we dont have support from others.
"The longer we don't have any meaningful high tech industry"
But we do.
"This is essentially a managed decline."
I wont argue with that. But if fabricating mass produced low value at high cost to the country the way to go? The UK still designed stuff, then sent it to cheaper places to produce. We would need to seriously make changes to environmental protection rules as well as build as much cheap coal energy production as possible while removing minimum wage and still we wouldnt be as competitive.
@Roland6
"With respect to chip foundries, well being outside the EU meant the UK missed out on the EU monies to be the host of an EU foundry…"
So we dont get a polluting foundry (greenies will be happy). At least the UK wont be net contributing to this when we already have high energy costs and are uncompetitive with Asian foundries. Instead thanks to brexit the US and EU can pump tax payer money into competing with Asian foundries and the UK get cheap chips. Sounds like a win.
"(*) Yes protected, those trade barriers the Brexiteers went on and on about were there for a reason - to benefit UK interests !"
Just as the trade barriers that borked our industries and brought us sub-par products until we got foreign cars, technology, etc.
@John Robson
"I see you've recently bought a car, would you like a new car? That's the level of accuracy of the massive intrusion that is current practise."
As I said- 'which I am sure most agree has laughable results currently'
"You can't get personally targeted advertising without the security concerns."
Possibly, probably.
@Jeff Smith
"Baffles me that anyone considers targeted advertising to be even the slightest bit necessary, as if no one ever bought anything before 2005."
What John Robson mentioned is targeted advertising. The magazine advertising what readers might also be interested in is targeting. The online tracking/targeting is an attempt to be even more accurate (which I am sure most agree has laughable results currently).
While I am somewhat concerned of private entities abusing data I am also concerned of the government demanding such data for abuse and even inserting a 'back door'. Currently governments are arguing for encryption they can decrypt at will, in the US the security services installed agents at social platforms.
Without the security concern I would be happy for more accurate advertising to be honest. Seeing things I am interested in is better than stuff I dont care about, and that also works for the advertiser.
@I am the liquor
"They did not do the thing that about which you claimed "And yet they did.""
I said "both you and GStern didnt think the EU stupid enough to consider such a thing. And yet they did.". According to Frans Timmermans the Executive Vice President of the European Commission they actually did consider it. So you are saying the EU didnt consider what Executive Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans claims they did?
"The Reuters article does not say the EU wanted to limit the power output of kettles, it says that some people fear that."
You either lie or didnt read it. I quote the article as I did before for you-
The European Commission has identified six types of electrical products where it wants to see lower energy consumption in order to help meet Europe's climate goals, among them kettles and hand dryers, Vice President Frans Timmermans said on Tuesday.
"What we are doing is evidence-based. We want to put the products on the list that have the highest energy yield. That is why kettles are on the list, because they are very high in terms of energy yields, and toasters are not on the list," Timmermans added.
"The Full Fact article is not terribly well written, but it is saying that not all of the 29 product categories would be regulated based on power output."
I think maybe you have moved the goal posts which might be where you are getting this wrong. The EU considered making such a change, I didnt say they did it. I quote myself responding to I am David Jones above-
@I am David Jones
"Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?"
I am not certain but I think the stupidity died when we left. It was too easy fodder to demonstrate the state of governance from the EU.
"It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a quantity of water. Reducing the power used does not change that; if anything, energy losses would be greater. The EU wants to reduce the energy consumption of appliances. Reducing the power consumption of a kettle would be counter to that goal, so they would not and did not consider that."
And this is where I think you want your cake and eat it. This paragraph suggests you understand the stupidity, but then you claim (against Executive Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans) that the EU would not and did not consider it.
@I am the liquor
"They did not"
They did not what?
"You've read the European Commission's study on the matter? No, of course you haven't. You've read the Daily Mail's lies about that study, and chosen to believe them, despite the fact that those lies should have been quite transparent, for the reasons already explained."
Erm... did you read my comment? Granted its not the study I quoted but reuters and full fact which were quoting Vice President Frans Timmermans the Executive Vice President of the European Commission.
*edit: wernt you going to explain how I somehow got the power/energy thing wrong or was I right and it doesnt matter now?
@I am the liquor
"yes, they came up with all sorts of ideas about how to reduce the energy consumption of kettles. You do understand the difference between energy and power, don't you?"
Again, it takes a given amount of power/energy to boil a kettle. Why you think being pedantic is gonna change this I dont know (maybe you will explain?). We have so far come to the conclusion such a proposal is stupid (you and GStern so far) and both you and GStern didnt think the EU stupid enough to consider such a thing. And yet they did. So yes it would be a stupid rule and good fodder for brexit supporters as the EU was considering it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
