I've roundly condemned Clegg passim for repeating his facile '3 million jobs lost' claim if Brexit was to occur. According to the logic of some below, that figure would be valid to use just because Clegg said it.
'A referendum held with the Tory officially party backing Brexit would certainly have a lot more chance of succeeding than one being run on a series of lies and misinformation from Cameron.'
Nah, your kidding yourself another excuse would be found,Farage & co are firmly part of the political establishment and love the gravy train.
Farage even boasted about how he had troughed £2 million in expenses.
I wonder if you actually believe the rubbish you post or think maybe you can con people simply by repeating it often enough?
@Isam - Fluffy easier to understand in person even if half cut!
That is very reassuring to hear - don't get me wrong, I love the guys 'unique' take on the world and the way he expresses it , however, occasionally one feels it would be useful along with the comment, to have a link to appropriate dictionary.
The Full Fact you are quoting come from 3 years ago and even then shows a rapid increase in the amount of law and regulation originating at the EU level. Given the comments by the EU Commissioner there is no reason to doubt that could have increased to 70% by now.
Your quote concerning Norway is a wonderful piece of misdirection. I doubt there is a single civil servant in the UK who could not claim that they were effected 'to some extent' by the EU. That is in no way comparable with the amount of law and regulation they are subjected to. Even if they only had to take into account one piece of EU derived legislation per year they would still be affected 'to some extent'.
There is certainly plenty of acceptable evidence to show that a 70% figure is a reasonable estimate. So the accusation you made of 'lies' is clearly proven false.
Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU.
There is reason to doubt, because there's no evidence for it. You may believe it; you may want to believe it, but there's no evidence. Just as there's no evidence for Clegg's 'three million jobs' lost on Brexit. Both are unsupportable by fact.
But even if we leave the EU, we may still be part of other related organisations, and we may well need to define our laws to fit in with these.
The Full Fact you are quoting come from 3 years ago and even then shows a rapid increase in the amount of law and regulation originating at the EU level. Given the comments by the EU Commissioner there is no reason to doubt that could have increased to 70% by now.
Your quote concerning Norway is a wonderful piece of misdirection. I doubt there is a single civil servant in the UK who could not claim that they were effected 'to some extent' by the EU. That is in no way comparable with the amount of law and regulation they are subjected to. Even if they only had to take into account one piece of EU derived legislation per year they would still be affected 'to some extent'.
There is certainly plenty of acceptable evidence to show that a 70% figure is a reasonable estimate. So the accusation you made of 'lies' is clearly proven false.
Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU.
There is reason to doubt, because there's no evidence for it. You may believe it; you may want to believe it, but there's no evidence. Just as there's no evidence for Clegg's 'three million jobs' lost on Brexit. Both are unsupportable by fact.
But even if we leave the EU, we may still be part of other related organisations, and we may well need to define our laws to fit in with these.
There is of course evidence. The three million jobs claim was easily disproved and did not fit any of the available evidence. The quote of anything from 70%-84% comes from a number of different sources including representatives at the EU itself and the German government, neither of whom have any reason to give succor to British Eurosceptics.
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
@Isam - Fluffy easier to understand in person even if half cut!
That is very reassuring to hear - don't get me wrong, I love the guys 'unique' take on the world and the way he expresses it , however, occasionally one feels it would be useful along with the comment, to have a link to appropriate dictionary.
Also, Fat Steve isn't fat!
!!!
Does truth still live in the land? Are we surrounded by lies on all sides? Woe!
Let me try to explain my previous post. I have in the real world met Tory activists who believe that their Party membership and their patriotism are the same thing. I don't see what's "snide" about seeking to establish whether or not someone on here sees politics in the same way. It was, after all, the political commonplace 250-300 years ago (although the Party then was Whig, not Tory) and may yet become so again. Particularly where the EU is concerned - there is no shortage of people who think as the McWhirters did. (Again, the Party is different but the principle is the same.)
Most Tories are patriots, but not all Patriots are Tories. That clear enough for you?
Capturing the flag has very much been a Republican strategy across the pond.
The Full Fact you are quoting come from 3 years ago and even then shows a rapid increase in the amount of law and regulation originating at the EU level. Given the comments by the EU Commissioner there is no reason to doubt that could have increased to 70% by now.
Your quote concerning Norway is a wonderful piece of misdirection. I doubt there is a single civil servant in the UK who could not claim that they were effected 'to some extent' by the EU. That is in no way comparable with the amount of law and regulation they are subjected to. Even if they only had to take into account one piece of EU derived legislation per year they would still be affected 'to some extent'.
There is certainly plenty of acceptable evidence to show that a 70% figure is a reasonable estimate. So the accusation you made of 'lies' is clearly proven false.
Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU.
There is reason to doubt, because there's no evidence for it. You may believe it; you may want to believe it, but there's no evidence. Just as there's no evidence for Clegg's 'three million jobs' lost on Brexit. Both are unsupportable by fact.
But even if we leave the EU, we may still be part of other related organisations, and we may well need to define our laws to fit in with these.
There is of course evidence. The three million jobs claim was easily disproved and did not fit any of the available evidence. The quote of anything from 70%-84% comes from a number of different sources including representatives at the EU itself and the German government, neither of whom have any reason to give succor to British Eurosceptics.
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
Please give links to these sources.
Clegg's '3 million jobs' came from an ancient document showing the numbers of jobs that relied on the EU. It assumed that those jobs would be at risk if Brexit, which I think is ridiculous.
UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels.
UKIP and the Lib Dems: two ends of the same deceitful bone.
I've roundly condemned Clegg passim for repeating his facile '3 million jobs lost' claim if Brexit was to occur. According to the logic of some below, that figure would be valid to use just because Clegg said it.
I've roundly condemned Clegg passim for repeating his facile '3 million jobs lost' claim if Brexit was to occur. According to the logic of some below, that figure would be valid to use just because Clegg said it.
The Full Fact you are quoting come from 3 years ago and even then shows a rapid increase in the amount of law and regulation originating at the EU level. Given the comments by the EU Commissioner there is no reason to doubt that could have increased to 70% by now.
Your quote concerning Norway is a wonderful piece of misdirection. I doubt there is a single civil servant in the UK who could not claim that they were effected 'to some extent' by the EU. That is in no way comparable with the amount of law and regulation they are subjected to. Even if they only had to take into account one piece of EU derived legislation per year they would still be affected 'to some extent'.
There is certainly plenty of acceptable evidence to show that a 70% figure is a reasonable estimate. So the accusation you made of 'lies' is clearly proven false.
Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU.
There is reason to doubt, because there's no evidence for it. You may believe it; you may want to believe it, but there's no evidence. Just as there's no evidence for Clegg's 'three million jobs' lost on Brexit. Both are unsupportable by fact.
But even if we leave the EU, we may still be part of other related organisations, and we may well need to define our laws to fit in with these.
There is of course evidence. The three million jobs claim was easily disproved and did not fit any of the available evidence. The quote of anything from 70%-84% comes from a number of different sources including representatives at the EU itself and the German government, neither of whom have any reason to give succor to British Eurosceptics.
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
Please give links to these sources.
Clegg's '3 million jobs' came from an ancient document showing the numbers of jobs that relied on the EU. It assumed that those jobs would be at risk if Brexit, which I think is ridiculous.
UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels.
UKIP and the Lib Dems: two ends of the same deceitful bone.
No one has said we wouldn't have to make some adjustments to be able to trade with the EU. The point is that we would no longer be subject to the vast majority of EU laws and regulation and could choose our own level of involvement.
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
I've roundly condemned Clegg passim for repeating his facile '3 million jobs lost' claim if Brexit was to occur. According to the logic of some below, that figure would be valid to use just because Clegg said it.
There is of course evidence. The three million jobs claim was easily disproved and did not fit any of the available evidence. The quote of anything from 70%-84% comes from a number of different sources including representatives at the EU itself and the German government, neither of whom have any reason to give succor to British Eurosceptics.
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
Please give links to these sources.
Clegg's '3 million jobs' came from an ancient document showing the numbers of jobs that relied on the EU. It assumed that those jobs would be at risk if Brexit, which I think is ridiculous.
UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels.
UKIP and the Lib Dems: two ends of the same deceitful bone.
No one has said we wouldn't have to make some adjustments to be able to trade with the EU. The point is that we would no longer be subject to the vast majority of EU laws and regulation and could choose our own level of involvement.
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
I agree it'd be a spurious argument, if that was what I was suggesting. But it was not.
Do we have any biologists/geneticists* on board? If so a question: Given certain psychological and physical similarities is there any evidence that Kim Jung Un and Wee-Eck are related...?
* smookie is our resident "shrink".
PS: Can anyone remember the name of that 'cider' one drank last night? Whatever it was it was subtle and potent: I only fell asleep at 03:30 BST.
Oh; "Where's johnO"? **
** johnO is a self-acclaimed 'Wet' who does not like Daid Mellor. The fact that David Mellor was a....
There is of course evidence. The three million jobs claim was easily disproved and did not fit any of the available evidence. The quote of anything from 70%-84% comes from a number of different sources including representatives at the EU itself and the German government, neither of whom have any reason to give succor to British Eurosceptics.
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
Please give links to these sources.
Clegg's '3 million jobs' came from an ancient document showing the numbers of jobs that relied on the EU. It assumed that those jobs would be at risk if Brexit, which I think is ridiculous.
UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels.
UKIP and the Lib Dems: two ends of the same deceitful bone.
No one has said we wouldn't have to make some adjustments to be able to trade with the EU. The point is that we would no longer be subject to the vast majority of EU laws and regulation and could choose our own level of involvement.
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
I agree it'd be a spurious argument, if that was what I was suggesting. But it was not.
So why do you use it as an argument in this discussion. By stating that these laws would still apply even if we left then you are implying that we would be no better off as far as our subjugation to EU law is concerned. If that is not what you are implying then your comment...
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
Do we have any biologists/geneticists* on board? If so a question: Given certain psychological and physical similarities is there any evidence that Kim Jung Un and Wee-Eck are related...?
* smookie is our resident "shrink".
PS: Can anyone remember the name of that 'cider' one drank last night? Whatever it was it was subtle and potent: I only fell asleep at 03:30 BST.
Oh; "Where's johnO"? **
** johnO is a self-acclaimed 'Wet' who does not like Daid Mellor. The fact that David Mellor was a....
:whoosh:
Stop it I can't stop laughing , you are so funny and intelligent, you are almost as bright as a cretin.
I think the by-election may flatter to deceive. If the result is a substantially reduced Tory majority with Labour second and UKIP a strong third or vice versa, we'll all say oh well and move on. It has the potential to be very significant, but I'm not yet convinced it will be.
Well a Con Hold (with reduced majority) would be pretty significant in it's own terms, given that the Tories haven't held a by election in government since the early 1980's, LOL!
Hurrah! For the first time in a long time Dr Stephen Fisher's weekly long term General Election forecast is showing an increase in the Tory tally, albeit by just one seat. Labour are also up by one, with the LibDems down two seats:
Con ........ 306 Lab ........ 286 LibDem .... 30 Other ....... 28
Total ...... 650
On this basis, the Tories are 20 seats short of winning an absolute majority ...... one can but dream!
'A referendum held with the Tory officially party backing Brexit would certainly have a lot more chance of succeeding than one being run on a series of lies and misinformation from Cameron.'
Nah, your kidding yourself another excuse would be found,Farage & co are firmly part of the political establishment and love the gravy train.
Farage even boasted about how he had troughed £2 million in expenses.
I guess you missed the part where I did point out I am not in fact a ukip supporter or where Richard Tyndall pointed out he supports them reluctantly.
Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).
However I have no points in common whatsoever with the labour, lib dems or conservative parties.
Given that frankly why should I give a toss about the fate of UKIP?
I am guessing you think I should be voting Tory however the tories like the rest of the parties are morally bankrupt corporate whores with no interest in what is good for the average citizen of this country and are only concerned with what benefits themselves and those whose pockets they live in just the same as Labour and the lib dems. I have no doubt UKIP will be exactly the same should they scale the electoral mountain.
I am not sure about Korea, but it does seem unlikely that Alex Salmond are united by their love of golf, dressing well and deep fried mars bars than anything else.
Do we have any biologists/geneticists* on board? If so a question: Given certain psychological and physical similarities is there any evidence that Kim Jung Un and Wee-Eck are related...?
* smookie is our resident "shrink".
PS: Can anyone remember the name of that 'cider' one drank last night? Whatever it was it was subtle and potent: I only fell asleep at 03:30 BST.
Oh; "Where's johnO"? **
** johnO is a self-acclaimed 'Wet' who does not like Daid Mellor. The fact that David Mellor was a....
'A referendum held with the Tory officially party backing Brexit would certainly have a lot more chance of succeeding than one being run on a series of lies and misinformation from Cameron.'
Nah, your kidding yourself another excuse would be found,Farage & co are firmly part of the political establishment and love the gravy train.
Farage even boasted about how he had troughed £2 million in expenses.
I guess you missed the part where I did point out I am not in fact a ukip supporter or where Richard Tyndall pointed out he supports them reluctantly.
Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).
However I have no points in common whatsoever with the labour, lib dems or conservative parties.
Given that frankly why should I give a toss about the fate of UKIP?
I am guessing you think I should be voting Tory however the tories like the rest of the parties are morally bankrupt corporate whores with no interest in what is good for the average citizen of this country and are only concerned with what benefits themselves and those whose pockets they live in just the same as Labour and the lib dems. I have no doubt UKIP will be exactly the same should they scale the electoral mountain.
The one statement that I most fervently wish Farage is being honest about but also the one I think is mostly likely a lie is that he would dissolve UKIP - or at least campaign for it to be dissolved - once the UK had left the EU.
I am afraid that he is in the end a politician and they always cling to power once they have got it. For all that I agree with many of his aims Farage does not strike me as being the type to give up when he is on top.
No one has said we wouldn't have to make some adjustments to be able to trade with the EU. The point is that we would no longer be subject to the vast majority of EU laws and regulation and could choose our own level of involvement.
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
I agree it'd be a spurious argument, if that was what I was suggesting. But it was not.
So why do you use it as an argument in this discussion. By stating that these laws would still apply even if we left then you are implying that we would be no better off as far as our subjugation to EU law is concerned. If that is not what you are implying then your comment...
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
You accused me of: "... suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside"
I said nothing about not changing our relationship; just that, obviously, if we did change that relationship, we may need to alter our legislation to fit with the organisations that we decide to be part of. I think we're both in agreement about that.
Likewise, I did not imply we would be 'no better off'.
Don't create strawmen.
Below you said: "Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU. "
My quote was in response to that. The reason we should accept some change in a brave new world (tm) is because we may want to be part of some European organisations that will require us to change *some* of our laws. Perhaps 1%, perhaps 10%, perhaps more. We cannot know.
If you don't want even 1% of laws to be decided outside the UK, we may be a rather lonely country.
No one has said we wouldn't have to make some adjustments to be able to trade with the EU. The point is that we would no longer be subject to the vast majority of EU laws and regulation and could choose our own level of involvement.
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
I agree it'd be a spurious argument, if that was what I was suggesting. But it was not.
So why do you use it as an argument in this discussion. By stating that these laws would still apply even if we left then you are implying that we would be no better off as far as our subjugation to EU law is concerned. If that is not what you are implying then your comment...
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
You accused me of: "... suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside"
I said nothing about not changing our relationship; just that, obviously, if we did change that relationship, we may need to alter our legislation to fit with the organisations that we decide to be part of. I think we're both in agreement about that.
Likewise, I did not imply we would be 'no better off'.
Don't create strawmen.
Below you said: "Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU. "
My quote was in response to that. The reason we should accept some change in a brave new world (tm) is because we may want to be part of some European organisations that will require us to change *some* of our laws. Perhaps 1%, perhaps 10%, perhaps more. We cannot know.
If you don't want even 1% of laws to be decided outside the UK, we may be a rather lonely country.
Actually no. We can have regulations and standards in place that allow us to trade into the EU with services and goods. That should not mean we have to abide by any of their rules and laws as far as our own domestic policy is concerned except on a voluntary basis where our two visions coincide. Any more than we have to abide by US laws to allow us to have them, as our largest single trading partner.
And it is not a strawman argument. You are the one who raised the issue of our abiding by EU laws even if we are outside of the EU. If it is not relevant then you are the one raising straw men not I.
So why do you use it as an argument in this discussion. By stating that these laws would still apply even if we left then you are implying that we would be no better off as far as our subjugation to EU law is concerned. If that is not what you are implying then your comment...
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
You accused me of: "... suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside"
I said nothing about not changing our relationship; just that, obviously, if we did change that relationship, we may need to alter our legislation to fit with the organisations that we decide to be part of. I think we're both in agreement about that.
Likewise, I did not imply we would be 'no better off'.
Don't create strawmen.
Below you said: "Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU. "
My quote was in response to that. The reason we should accept some change in a brave new world (tm) is because we may want to be part of some European organisations that will require us to change *some* of our laws. Perhaps 1%, perhaps 10%, perhaps more. We cannot know.
If you don't want even 1% of laws to be decided outside the UK, we may be a rather lonely country.
Actually no. We can have regulations and standards in place that allow us to trade into the EU with services and goods. That should not mean we have to abide by any of their rules and laws as far as our own domestic policy is concerned except on a voluntary basis where our two visions coincide. Any more than we have to abide by US laws to allow us to have them, as our largest single trading partner.
And it is not a strawman argument. You are the one who raised the issue of our abiding by EU laws even if we are outside of the EU. If it is not relevant then you are the one raising straw men not I.
It is all too relevant, I'm afraid.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
Has anyone else been here? A surprisingly fascinating city: like a kind of nouveau riche multicultural English Zurich on a friendly desert planet. Not at all the dull, sprawling suburban mining capital I'd been led to expect.
It feels richer and nicer than any equivalent American city.
Very intriguing.
Visited some years ago. Modern city on the beautiful Swan River. Some sprawling suburbs not as attractive.
Just on the point of laws and standards. If a company wishes to sell into the USA then their products to be sold there must comply with US standards and the same for any other market, China, Japan wherever. If the UK was outside the EU then the reverse would also be true.
For example, if the Danes or the Cloggies wanted to sell their pork here then we could insist that such meat was raised in compliance with our own animal welfare standards and rules. At present we cannot. A small matter in the great scheme of things no doubt, but it does lead to UK farmers labouring under increased costs by comparison with their competitors, allows foreign farmers to get away with practices that would see them, rightly, fined and driven out of business if carried out here, and shows that the free market is far from the level playing field that the politicos like to pretend.
Who knows Brexit might even lead to a the free market in services finally being established because we would actually have some negotiating clout.
'Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).'
Me too,hence my vote for UKIP in past Euro elections.
However,when we get a sniff of a referendum commitment for 2017,UKIP run through hoops with every excuse under the sun not to support it.
UKIP actually did slightly better in Newark in 2010 than they did in Eastleigh, 3.8% vs 3.6%. So I don't think that can be used as evidence that the party can't win or get close to winning.
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
.
It is all too relevant, I'm afraid.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
I believe the point you are missing is easily explained
company A and B both make widgets. In british law widgets have to conform to standards X,Y and Z.
For europe they also have to comply to U,V and W standards and regulations.
Company A decides it is not cost effective to comply to U,V and W as the extra sales into the European market will not offset the extra costs to the business
Company B takes the opposite view and redesigns its product. Both companies are happy company A can blithely ignore those silly europeans and their laws but can't sell into that market.
Company B can continue to sell into that market because it has decided its worth it. Both have made pragmatic decisions
Currently however company A bears all of the extra cost whether it has any market sales to europe or not.
What should be happening is that company A can undercut company B in markets where conformance to U,V and W are not important. The EU is acting therefore in a protectionist manner and putting up a barrier to company A
Has anyone else been here? A surprisingly fascinating city: like a kind of nouveau riche multicultural English Zurich on a friendly desert planet. Not at all the dull, sprawling suburban mining capital I'd been led to expect.
It feels richer and nicer than any equivalent American city.
Very intriguing.
Visited some years ago. Modern city on the beautiful Swan River. Some sprawling suburbs not as attractive.
I recommend a revisit. Apparently - according to locals and outsiders - the city has been transformed in the last three-five years (a transformation which is ongoing). Huge mining wealth has been poured into glittering city centre bar/dining scenes and soaring skyscrapers.
It feels like one of the richest cities I have ever visited. And it is in the middle of nowhere. Odd.
It's rather hot in the summer though. 45 degrees isn't uncommon. I wouldn't like to live in a place where you can barely open the front door due to heat sometimes.
Has anyone else been here? A surprisingly fascinating city: like a kind of nouveau riche multicultural English Zurich on a friendly desert planet. Not at all the dull, sprawling suburban mining capital I'd been led to expect.
It feels richer and nicer than any equivalent American city.
Very intriguing.
Visited some years ago. Modern city on the beautiful Swan River. Some sprawling suburbs not as attractive.
I recommend a revisit. Apparently - according to locals and outsiders - the city has been transformed in the last three-five years (a transformation which is ongoing). Huge mining wealth has been poured into glittering city centre bar/dining scenes and soaring skyscrapers.
It feels like one of the richest cities I have ever visited. And it is in the middle of nowhere. Odd.
I recently scanned in some slides of my dad's, from when he lived in Sydney in the late 1950s / early 1960s. I took him through Streetview, trying to compare his shots with the modern city. The place has totally changed; for one thing, there were virtually no skyscrapers, and the opera house was just being started.
Mind you. London's changed a great deal in that time as well.
'Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).'
Me too,hence my vote for UKIP in past Euro elections.
However,when we get a sniff of a referendum commitment for 2017,UKIP run through hoops with every excuse under the sun not to support it.
I am not a UKIP member nor supporter and I am not looking to get elected so have no axe to grind. A 2017 referendum under Cameron is not something I support for the reasons I gave. We first need a truly eurosceptic leader of a main political party in place. I don't frankly care which party that leader is leading. With the three main parties being led by europhiles (and cameron is a europhile in my book) then the lies and spin of the eu loving elite will have no effective counter especially when you take into account the propaganda mills of the BBC. We are already seeing the political and media elite closing ranks and uniting behind the eu banner at the mere whiff of there being a swell of support for a eurosceptic party. Think how much more this will be the case in a euro referendum situation.
UKIP actually did slightly better in Newark in 2010 than they did in Eastleigh, 3.8% vs 3.6%. So I don't think that can be used as evidence that the party can't win or get close to winning.
UKIP actually did slightly better in Newark in 2010 than they did in Eastleigh, 3.8% vs 3.6%. So I don't think that can be used as evidence that the party can't win or get close to winning.
How do local election results compare since then - on android so can't look it up myself
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
There is every point in continuing - for me at least - it as it is showing up the paucity of your arguments. There is no contortion. You brought up the issue of laws applying outside of the EU and I made it clear that that was not the same thing. If you wish to withdraw that contention then do feel free to do so. Otherwise we can proceed from the principle that the EU should not be making laws and regulations that affect the UK. Again whether they are 1% or 70% (where we started and a figure you have still been unable to disprove) is only a matter of degree. The principle remains the same.
Tricky one to read this... A Tory win feels implausible because winning any by-election, let alone one when they're in government, isn't something the Tories really do. Having said that, in the past there was always the perfect receptacle for the anti-Tory, disaffected Tory, Uncle Tom Cobley and all vote - namely the Lib Dems. They no longer enjoy that honour. So, as no one's entirely sure what the protest party now is, the Tory opposition might remain unfocussed and let the Tories in.
Has anyone else been here? A surprisingly fascinating city: like a kind of nouveau riche multicultural English Zurich on a friendly desert planet. Not at all the dull, sprawling suburban mining capital I'd been led to expect.
It feels richer and nicer than any equivalent American city.
Very intriguing.
Visited some years ago. Modern city on the beautiful Swan River. Some sprawling suburbs not as attractive.
I recommend a revisit. Apparently - according to locals and outsiders - the city has been transformed in the last three-five years (a transformation which is ongoing). Huge mining wealth has been poured into glittering city centre bar/dining scenes and soaring skyscrapers.
It feels like one of the richest cities I have ever visited. And it is in the middle of nowhere. Odd.
Visited about a decade ago - took the Indian Pacific from Sydney....
What do you mean "in the middle of nowhere"?
As someone observed of Australia, twenty million people, on the wrong side of a desert.....
Perth Australia...my first landfall there in 1970,on a Alan Whicker trip...fell in love with the the place and the country on that visit...been back many times since..
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
.
It is all too relevant, I'm afraid.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
I believe the point you are missing is easily explained
company A and B both make widgets. In british law widgets have to conform to standards X,Y and Z.
For europe they also have to comply to U,V and W standards and regulations.
Company A decides it is not cost effective to comply to U,V and W as the extra sales into the European market will not offset the extra costs to the business
Company B takes the opposite view and redesigns its product. Both companies are happy company A can blithely ignore those silly europeans and their laws but can't sell into that market.
Company B can continue to sell into that market because it has decided its worth it. Both have made pragmatic decisions
Currently however company A bears all of the extra cost whether it has any market sales to europe or not.
What should be happening is that company A can undercut company B in markets where conformance to U,V and W are not important. The EU is acting therefore in a protectionist manner and putting up a barrier to company A
Yes, I understand that, but it's relevance to this discussion is debatable.
For one thing, company A's costs in meeting the new standards might be offset by a number of means. For instance reduced costs by its suppliers (because there may be some commonality of parts and knowledge with it's competitors suppliers) and not having to undergo an expensive redesign if they decide to go for European markets in the future. Their customers would also not need a redesign if they were to change. Knowledge will also be more common, meaning staff training is lower.
For another, Company B has a much bigger potential market, and thus greater potential economies of scale.
There's reasons why standards develop. After all, why should company A even follow standards X,Y and Z if it would be cheaper not to?
Besides, many standards are good IMHO, and we need more sensible standards in the world. We'd be having a little trouble having this discussion without Internet standards, for instance. Have fun trying to get your browser to work or popular without general compliance to RFC 2068/2616...
Tricky one to read this... A Tory win feels implausible because winning any by-election, let alone one when they're in government, isn't something the Tories really do. Having said that, in the past there was always the perfect receptacle for the anti-Tory, disaffected Tory, Uncle Tom Cobley and all vote - namely the Lib Dems. They no longer enjoy that honour. So, as no one's entirely sure what the protest party now is, the Tory opposition might remain unfocussed and let the Tories in.
I really can't see anyone but the Tories winning this one. An argument that UKIP might try using is that this is only electing an MP for one year and is a good opportunity to send a message to the other parties. But I am not sure even that would work in such a strong Tory constituency.
For example, if the Danes or the Cloggies wanted to sell their pork here then we could insist that such meat was raised in compliance with our own animal welfare standards and rules. At present we cannot. A small matter in the great scheme of things no doubt, but it does lead to UK farmers labouring under increased costs by comparison with their competitors, allows foreign farmers to get away with practices that would see them, rightly, fined and driven out of business if carried out here, and shows that the free market is far from the level playing field that the politicos like to pretend.
If we were to imagine life without the EU (assume it simply doesn't exist, just for thought experiment's sake), then you would see farmers in the UK raise their pigs so as to match both UK standards and the standards of neighbours - simply because they would not want to be in a position where the price of pigs in France was £110 and it was £90 in England.
If you look around the world, you tend to see that product standards tend to converge around the largest country in any given continent. This is particularly true of North America post-NAFTA. (NAFTA rules mean you cannot use local standards as a trade barrier.) Effectively, nothing in North America is made to Canadian or Mexican standards any more, they are all made to US ones.
"Matthew Parris has written a silly column about Ukip. A very silly column. It fits with the growing narrative that Ukip isn’t just a bunch of xenophobic golf players with too much time on their hands but actually the first stage of the Fourth Reich. Oh my, it is silly.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
Yes, I understand that, but it's relevance to this discussion is debatable.
For one thing, company A's costs in meeting the new standards might be offset by a number of means. For instance reduced costs by its suppliers (because there may be some commonality of parts and knowledge with it's competitors suppliers) and not having to undergo an expensive redesign if they decide to go for European markets in the future. Their customers would also not need a redesign if they were to change. Knowledge will also be more common, meaning staff training is lower.
For another, Company B has a much bigger potential market, and thus greater potential economies of scale.
There's reasons why standards develop. After all, why should company A even follow standards X,Y and Z if it would be cheaper not to?
Besides, many standards are good IMHO, and we need more sensible standards in the world. We'd be having a little trouble having this discussion without Internet standards, for instance. Have fun trying to get your browser to work or popular without general compliance to RFC 2068/2616...
While all your points are true you are still missing the point
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
In reality what often happens now is people look at what they need to do to comply with all the regulations to produce widget A and decide its not viable to set up a company to do so. Whereas they may find if they only needed to comply with the regulations relevant to the market place in which they wish to sell then it now makes economic sense to set up the company after all.
While I fully agree some standards are good that does not mean all standards are good. Standards existed long before the evil behemoth that is the EU and will exist long after its destruction. Where industries need to interoperate they usually manage to come up with standards without government help or prompting. Example DVD, Bluray, HTML5.
Government gets in the way frankly and tries to suborn standards away from the point they are meant to address and adds in irrelevancies. If for example governments had got involved in the original HTML standard(as you mentioned internet standards) we would have mixed in all sorts of mechanisms to exert control and censorship and not just the standards defining what things mean
"Matthew Parris has written a silly column about Ukip. A very silly column. It fits with the growing narrative that Ukip isn’t just a bunch of xenophobic golf players with too much time on their hands but actually the first stage of the Fourth Reich. Oh my, it is silly.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
"Ukip is doing something very interesting. It is delineating the boundaries between the metropolitan elite and the provincial disaffected – and inviting the two groups to define themselves by opposition to one another.
Implicit in Matthew Parris’ remarks is a dislike of those who wail about the impact of immigration. The pull quote on his article reads, “Many inadequate people blame their problems on foreigners.” That’s a nice sentiment, isn’t it? Those inadequates presumably include out of work plumbers, those stuck on housing waiting lists, parents searching for school places.
Of course, immigration has cultural and economic benefits that a newspaper columnist with a PhD in PPE might be able to quote to satisfy the more learned readers. But don’t dismiss the feelings of less elite subscribers to The Times, Matthew. Or else they might start voting Ukip. Shudder…"
The main article says Labour won the seat in 1997, but in 2010 boundary changes increased the Tory majority from 6,464 to 10,077. Since Labour won in 1997 by 3,016 votes they probably wouldn't have taken it on the current boundaries.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
There is every point in continuing - for me at least - it as it is showing up the paucity of your arguments. There is no contortion. You brought up the issue of laws applying outside of the EU and I made it clear that that was not the same thing. If you wish to withdraw that contention then do feel free to do so. Otherwise we can proceed from the principle that the EU should not be making laws and regulations that affect the UK. Again whether they are 1% or 70% (where we started and a figure you have still been unable to disprove) is only a matter of degree. The principle remains the same.
My arguments are fairly solid, I'm afraid. You've repeatedly misrepresented what I wrote below, and seem unable to see that. For instance I never suggested that I "would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside."
You made that up, and it's clearly not been my position on the EU on here passim. I'm open to leaving the EU, but I need to be persuaded. I'd always looked towards you as being a thoughtful voice on the subject and its implications.
As sometimes happens, UKIP's supporters push me slightly off the fence into the pro-Europe garden. I'll just have to wait for the next bit of EU lunacy to push me straight again. ;-)
For example, if the Danes or the Cloggies wanted to sell their pork here then we could insist that such meat was raised in compliance with our own animal welfare standards and rules. At present we cannot. A small matter in the great scheme of things no doubt, but it does lead to UK farmers labouring under increased costs by comparison with their competitors, allows foreign farmers to get away with practices that would see them, rightly, fined and driven out of business if carried out here, and shows that the free market is far from the level playing field that the politicos like to pretend.
If we were to imagine life without the EU (assume it simply doesn't exist, just for thought experiment's sake), then you would see farmers in the UK raise their pigs so as to match both UK standards and the standards of neighbours - simply because they would not want to be in a position where the price of pigs in France was £110 and it was £90 in England.
If you look around the world, you tend to see that product standards tend to converge around the largest country in any given continent. This is particularly true of North America post-NAFTA. (NAFTA rules mean you cannot use local standards as a trade barrier.) Effectively, nothing in North America is made to Canadian or Mexican standards any more, they are all made to US ones.
Sorry, Mr. Richard, but I am not with you. The bloke down the Road has to comply with a set of rules, the bloke in Holland doesn't and as result has fewer costs but can still sell his product here. So the bloke down the road is at a disadvantage and the pigs in Holland have far worse lives, so bad in fact that we would not tolerate them for English pigs.
If you want to argue for lower animal welfare standards in the UK, so that we fall in with those on the continent and then use our "influence" to persuade everyone else to raise theirs to what ours used to be, well I can see the logic but not, frankly the appeal.
However, I fear I have missed your point. Or on second reading have I?
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
I'd get this line of argument if there was a libertarian country talking about whether they should be participating in a trade bloc with a less libertarian economy, but the country we're talking about here is _Britain_, where everything is an eyesore or a potential death-trap and Something Must Be Done about it. Leaving the EU wouldn't make the hair-brained ideas go away, it would just free the UK to come up with its own hair-brained ideas, which for the reasons rcs1000 gives would mostly end up being a super-set of the EU's hair-brained ideas.
"Matthew Parris has written a silly column about Ukip. A very silly column. It fits with the growing narrative that Ukip isn’t just a bunch of xenophobic golf players with too much time on their hands but actually the first stage of the Fourth Reich. Oh my, it is silly.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
I'd get this line of argument if there was a libertarian country talking about whether they should be participating in a trade bloc with a less libertarian economy, but the country we're talking about here is _Britain_, where everything is an eyesore or a potential death-trap and Something Must Be Done about it. Leaving the EU wouldn't make the hair-brained ideas go away, it would just free the UK to come up with its own hair-brained ideas, which for the reasons rcs1000 gives would mostly end up being a super-set of the EU's hair-brained ideas.
To which I would answer I am no more enamoured of the current british method of government than I am the EU. However it is a case of one step at a time. First the eu then tackle the british civil service. Unfortunately tackling our lot before the eu would be blocked by the EU so the EU gets it first.
"Matthew Parris has written a silly column about Ukip. A very silly column. It fits with the growing narrative that Ukip isn’t just a bunch of xenophobic golf players with too much time on their hands but actually the first stage of the Fourth Reich. Oh my, it is silly.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
Parris has form in this type of boorish contempt for his inferiors;
April 1979
Dear Mrs Collingwood, At Mrs Thatcher's request I am replying on her behalf to your recent letter.
I hope you will not think me too blunt if I say that it may well be that your Council accommodation is unsatisfactory, but considering the fact that you have been unable to buy your own accommodation you are lucky to have been given something which the rest of us are paying for out of taxes.
With good wishes, Yours sincerely, Helen Senior pp Matthew Parris Private Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
I'd get this line of argument if there was a libertarian country talking about whether they should be participating in a trade bloc with a less libertarian economy, but the country we're talking about here is _Britain_, where everything is an eyesore or a potential death-trap and Something Must Be Done about it. Leaving the EU wouldn't make the hair-brained ideas go away, it would just free the UK to come up with its own hair-brained ideas, which for the reasons rcs1000 gives would mostly end up being a super-set of the EU's hair-brained ideas.
To which I would answer I am no more enamoured of the current british method of government than I am the EU. However it is a case of one step at a time. First the eu then tackle the british civil service. Unfortunately tackling our lot before the eu would be blocked by the EU so the EU gets it first.
This reminds me of the Bennites opposing the EU because it stopped them creating Socialism in the UK. While they were fighting this fight Thatcher was not in fact implementing Socialism in the UK.
Once the UK starts exerting a libertarian influence on the EU, instead of an authoritarian influence, then you can start to talk about how you might have less hair-brained government interference without the EU.
Yes, I understand that, but it's relevance to this discussion is debatable.
For one thing, company A's costs in meeting the new standards might be offset by a number of means. For instance reduced costs by its suppliers (because there may be some commonality of parts and knowledge with it's competitors suppliers) and not having to undergo an expensive redesign if they decide to go for European markets in the future. Their customers would also not need a redesign if they were to change. Knowledge will also be more common, meaning staff training is lower.
For another, Company B has a much bigger potential market, and thus greater potential economies of scale.
There's reasons why standards develop. After all, why should company A even follow standards X,Y and Z if it would be cheaper not to?
Besides, many standards are good IMHO, and we need more sensible standards in the world. We'd be having a little trouble having this discussion without Internet standards, for instance. Have fun trying to get your browser to work or popular without general compliance to RFC 2068/2616...
The same could be said of trading with our largest single export market which is the US. And yet we would not insist on companies producing purely for the internal UK market having to meet US standards. Why should we do so for the EU? EU trade is somewhere around 10% of our GDP and yet we let its laws and regulations effect the other 90% of our business. It is ridiculous.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
There is every point in continuing - for me at least - it as it is showing up the paucity of your arguments. There is no contortion. You brought up the issue of laws applying outside of the EU and I made it clear that that was not the same thing. If you wish to withdraw that contention then do feel free to do so. Otherwise we can proceed from the principle that the EU should not be making laws and regulations that affect the UK. Again whether they are 1% or 70% (where we started and a figure you have still been unable to disprove) is only a matter of degree. The principle remains the same.
My arguments are fairly solid, I'm afraid. You've repeatedly misrepresented what I wrote below, and seem unable to see that. For instance I never suggested that I "would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside."
You made that up, and it's clearly not been my position on the EU on here passim. I'm open to leaving the EU, but I need to be persuaded. I'd always looked towards you as being a thoughtful voice on the subject and its implications.
As sometimes happens, UKIP's supporters push me slightly off the fence into the pro-Europe garden. I'll just have to wait for the next bit of EU lunacy to push me straight again. ;-)
So why bring up the effect of Brussels laws on us if we were outside the EU in the first place? You brought that to the argument not me and now you have been called on it you are trying to wriggle out.
It is simple. Is that part of your argument or not? If it is then what I have said is valid. If it is not then you should not have thrown it in in the first place.
Some people seem to forget what they have written only a short while before.
"Matthew Parris has written a silly column about Ukip. A very silly column. It fits with the growing narrative that Ukip isn’t just a bunch of xenophobic golf players with too much time on their hands but actually the first stage of the Fourth Reich. Oh my, it is silly.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
Parris has form in this type of boorish contempt for his inferiors;
April 1979
Dear Mrs Collingwood, At Mrs Thatcher's request I am replying on her behalf to your recent letter.
I hope you will not think me too blunt if I say that it may well be that your Council accommodation is unsatisfactory, but considering the fact that you have been unable to buy your own accommodation you are lucky to have been given something which the rest of us are paying for out of taxes.
With good wishes, Yours sincerely, Helen Senior pp Matthew Parris Private Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Terrible slur against Parris. It's well known that the dreadful woman had been complaining about the noise from next door's budgerigar and that a child with Down's Syndrome and coloured immigrants lived down the street.
"While I fully agree some standards are good that does not mean all standards are good."
Agreed. That's why I said 'sensible standards'.
"Where industries need to interoperate they usually manage to come up with standards without government help or prompting. Example DVD, Bluray, HTML5."
The US's American phone market shows that when it fails it's a massive problem. Why did two relatively small companies - Nokia and Vodafone - become massive players worldwide? It was because Europe got together and mandated a standard based on GSM, which meant there was a massive market available for their products. That standardisation also helped most of the rest of the world also pick GSM, increasing the potential market.
The US did not do this. Instead, you had a stupid situation where your phone would not work in different cities. This was fixed, at a cost, by the use of dual- and tri- band phones that supported GSM / CDMA / UMTS etc.
The US market utterly failed, and it's still a mess that's only workable because brainy boffins have made chips that support all of the above standards. Sadly, if anything it's becoming worse with terms like 4G and especially 5G becoming a free-for-all with sparse or no standards.
The Bluray example is interesting, as there was competition with Toshiba's HD-DVD and a vast amount of wasted resources. And when this happens the 'best' solution does not necessarily win - for example VHS vs Betamax.
"Government gets in the way frankly and tries to suborn standards away from the point they are meant to address and adds in irrelevancies. If for example governments had got involved in the original HTML standard(as you mentioned internet standards) we would have mixed in all sorts of mechanisms to exert control and censorship and not just the standards defining what things mean."
As I've shown above, governments (and governmental organisations) can greatly aid business. The important thing is for them not to get too involved; set a bunch of capable people to do a set task of well-defined but limited scope. This happens all the time.
I'm far from an expert on it, but did French government interference stifle Minitel - the advanced French precursor to the WWW - in the way you mention above?
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
I'd get this line of argument if there was a libertarian country talking about whether they should be participating in a trade bloc with a less libertarian economy, but the country we're talking about here is _Britain_, where everything is an eyesore or a potential death-trap and Something Must Be Done about it. Leaving the EU wouldn't make the hair-brained ideas go away, it would just free the UK to come up with its own hair-brained ideas, which for the reasons rcs1000 gives would mostly end up being a super-set of the EU's hair-brained ideas.
To which I would answer I am no more enamoured of the current british method of government than I am the EU. However it is a case of one step at a time. First the eu then tackle the british civil service. Unfortunately tackling our lot before the eu would be blocked by the EU so the EU gets it first.
This reminds me of the Bennites opposing the EU because it stopped them creating Socialism in the UK. While they were fighting this fight Thatcher was not in fact implementing Socialism in the UK.
Once the UK starts exerting a libertarian influence on the EU, instead of an authoritarian influence, then you can start to talk about how you might have less hair-brained government interference without the EU.
If the only reason I wanted us out of the EU is to address the beauracray of the uk then you may have a valid point. It is not the main reason however merely a pleasant side effect of removing us from the malignant tumor that is the EU.
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
I'd get this line of argument if there was a libertarian country talking about whether they should be participating in a trade bloc with a less libertarian economy, but the country we're talking about here is _Britain_, where everything is an eyesore or a potential death-trap and Something Must Be Done about it. Leaving the EU wouldn't make the hair-brained ideas go away, it would just free the UK to come up with its own hair-brained ideas, which for the reasons rcs1000 gives would mostly end up being a super-set of the EU's hair-brained ideas.
To which I would answer I am no more enamoured of the current british method of government than I am the EU. However it is a case of one step at a time. First the eu then tackle the british civil service. Unfortunately tackling our lot before the eu would be blocked by the EU so the EU gets it first.
This reminds me of the Bennites opposing the EU because it stopped them creating Socialism in the UK. While they were fighting this fight Thatcher was not in fact implementing Socialism in the UK.
Once the UK starts exerting a libertarian influence on the EU, instead of an authoritarian influence, then you can start to talk about how you might have less hair-brained government interference without the EU.
The EU promotes bad governance. It's given Europe the Euro and the CAP, and is largely corrupt. It's not the only force for bad governance in Europe, but problems are best tackled one at a time.
OT. Can West Ham throw it away at this late point in the game? Two goals ahead and Spurs down to 10 men.Hopefully not but never underestimate the ability of the Hammers to come unstuck. If they win they are definitely safe so hopefully they will hang on.
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
.
It is all too relevant, I'm afraid.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
I believe the point you are missing is easily explained
company A and B both make widgets. In british law widgets have to conform to standards X,Y and Z.
For europe they also have to comply to U,V and W standards and regulations.
Company A decides it is not cost effective to comply to U,V and W as the extra sales into the European market will not offset the extra costs to the business
Company B takes the opposite view and redesigns its product. Both companies are happy company A can blithely ignore those silly europeans and their laws but can't sell into that market.
Company B can continue to sell into that market because it has decided its worth it. Both have made pragmatic decisions
Currently however company A bears all of the extra cost whether it has any market sales to europe or not.
What should be happening is that company A can undercut company B in markets where conformance to U,V and W are not important. The EU is acting therefore in a protectionist manner and putting up a barrier to company A
So why bring up the effect of Brussels laws on us if we were outside the EU in the first place? You brought that to the argument not me and now you have been called on it you are trying to wriggle out.
It is simple. Is that part of your argument or not? If it is then what I have said is valid. If it is not then you should not have thrown it in in the first place.
Some people seem to forget what they have written only a short while before.
I've not forgotten. You continually misrepresent what I said - you need to calm down, clear your mind and go back and re-read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
To make my position clear:
The chances are we will not leave Europe fully, and will still be members of some European organisations, e.g. EFTA. As the rules of those organisations change, we may need to enact legislation accordingly. These would be legislative changes coming from Europe.
However, and this is vital, I do not see the above as a reason for not changing our relationship with the EU.
Comments
I've roundly condemned Clegg passim for repeating his facile '3 million jobs lost' claim if Brexit was to occur. According to the logic of some below, that figure would be valid to use just because Clegg said it.
E.g.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Nick_Clegg_3_million_UK_jobs_rely_directly_on_EU-3087
It's sad that UKIP have to descend to the same level, when a more realistic figure would be supportable by evidence.
But even if we leave the EU, we may still be part of other related organisations, and we may well need to define our laws to fit in with these.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10803932/This-assault-on-the-City-shows-you-cannot-reason-with-Europe.html
And as I say, whether it is 70% or 50% it is still unacceptable.
Does truth still live in the land? Are we surrounded by lies on all sides? Woe!
'I wonder if you actually believe the rubbish you post or think maybe you can con people simply by repeating it often enough?'
That's a bit rich coming from someone that's clearly been taken in by a conman masquerading as an anti establishment figure.
Clegg's '3 million jobs' came from an ancient document showing the numbers of jobs that relied on the EU. It assumed that those jobs would be at risk if Brexit, which I think is ridiculous.
UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels.
UKIP and the Lib Dems: two ends of the same deceitful bone.
:whistles:
You seem to be suggesting that you would not change our relationship with the EU since we would still have to meet some of their regulatory standards if we were outside. It is a spurious argument.
As an aside, it would be interesting to know how many EU jobs are linked to trade with the UK.
Do we have any biologists/geneticists* on board? If so a question: Given certain psychological and physical similarities is there any evidence that Kim Jung Un and Wee-Eck are related...?
* smookie is our resident "shrink".
PS: Can anyone remember the name of that 'cider' one drank last night? Whatever it was it was subtle and potent: I only fell asleep at 03:30 BST.
Oh; "Where's johnO"? **
** johnO is a self-acclaimed 'Wet' who does not like Daid Mellor. The fact that David Mellor was a....
:whoosh:
"UKIP's claim is based on thin air, and assumes that we will not have to alter our laws to fit in with the European organisation we want to remain part of. This is also ridiculous on both levels."
...is meaningless in the context of this debate.
Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).
However I have no points in common whatsoever with the labour, lib dems or conservative parties.
Given that frankly why should I give a toss about the fate of UKIP?
I am guessing you think I should be voting Tory however the tories like the rest of the parties are morally bankrupt corporate whores with no interest in what is good for the average citizen of this country and are only concerned with what benefits themselves and those whose pockets they live in just the same as Labour and the lib dems. I have no doubt UKIP will be exactly the same should they scale the electoral mountain.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve
I am not sure about Korea, but it does seem unlikely that Alex Salmond are united by their love of golf, dressing well and deep fried mars bars than anything else.
I am afraid that he is in the end a politician and they always cling to power once they have got it. For all that I agree with many of his aims Farage does not strike me as being the type to give up when he is on top.
I said nothing about not changing our relationship; just that, obviously, if we did change that relationship, we may need to alter our legislation to fit with the organisations that we decide to be part of. I think we're both in agreement about that.
Likewise, I did not imply we would be 'no better off'.
Don't create strawmen.
Below you said: "Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU. "
My quote was in response to that. The reason we should accept some change in a brave new world (tm) is because we may want to be part of some European organisations that will require us to change *some* of our laws. Perhaps 1%, perhaps 10%, perhaps more. We cannot know.
If you don't want even 1% of laws to be decided outside the UK, we may be a rather lonely country.
And it is not a strawman argument. You are the one who raised the issue of our abiding by EU laws even if we are outside of the EU. If it is not relevant then you are the one raising straw men not I.
If you're that willing to contort and twist what I say, then your Europhobia's got the better of your usual good sense and there is little point in continuing this discussion.
For example, if the Danes or the Cloggies wanted to sell their pork here then we could insist that such meat was raised in compliance with our own animal welfare standards and rules. At present we cannot. A small matter in the great scheme of things no doubt, but it does lead to UK farmers labouring under increased costs by comparison with their competitors, allows foreign farmers to get away with practices that would see them, rightly, fined and driven out of business if carried out here, and shows that the free market is far from the level playing field that the politicos like to pretend.
Who knows Brexit might even lead to a the free market in services finally being established because we would actually have some negotiating clout.
'Speaking for myself my only point of commonality with them is that I want a british exit from the eu (for different reasons than UKIP is should be added).'
Me too,hence my vote for UKIP in past Euro elections.
However,when we get a sniff of a referendum commitment for 2017,UKIP run through hoops with every excuse under the sun not to support it.
company A and B both make widgets. In british law widgets have to conform to standards X,Y and Z.
For europe they also have to comply to U,V and W standards and regulations.
Company A decides it is not cost effective to comply to U,V and W as the extra sales into the European market will not offset the extra costs to the business
Company B takes the opposite view and redesigns its product. Both companies are happy company A can blithely ignore those silly europeans and their laws but can't sell into that market.
Company B can continue to sell into that market because it has decided its worth it. Both have made pragmatic decisions
Currently however company A bears all of the extra cost whether it has any market sales to europe or not.
What should be happening is that company A can undercut company B in markets where conformance to U,V and W are not important. The EU is acting therefore in a protectionist manner and putting up a barrier to company A
Mind you. London's changed a great deal in that time as well.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-05-03/uk-winner-scoops-73m-jackpot-on-euromillions/
Check your tickets!
What do you mean "in the middle of nowhere"?
As someone observed of Australia, twenty million people, on the wrong side of a desert.....
Boo hiss to the EU!
With a year to go, only one thing about the 2015 general election is certain: it will demolish old political certainties"
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601571-year-go-only-one-thing-about-2015-general-election-certain-it-will-demolish
For one thing, company A's costs in meeting the new standards might be offset by a number of means. For instance reduced costs by its suppliers (because there may be some commonality of parts and knowledge with it's competitors suppliers) and not having to undergo an expensive redesign if they decide to go for European markets in the future. Their customers would also not need a redesign if they were to change. Knowledge will also be more common, meaning staff training is lower.
For another, Company B has a much bigger potential market, and thus greater potential economies of scale.
There's reasons why standards develop. After all, why should company A even follow standards X,Y and Z if it would be cheaper not to?
Besides, many standards are good IMHO, and we need more sensible standards in the world. We'd be having a little trouble having this discussion without Internet standards, for instance. Have fun trying to get your browser to work or popular without general compliance to RFC 2068/2616...
If you look around the world, you tend to see that product standards tend to converge around the largest country in any given continent. This is particularly true of North America post-NAFTA. (NAFTA rules mean you cannot use local standards as a trade barrier.) Effectively, nothing in North America is made to Canadian or Mexican standards any more, they are all made to US ones.
At an almost empty Derby railway station, I passed a little posse of youths with purple badges and pound-sign stickers and … felt just momentarily menaced … I was starting to look at the Ukip phenomenon with new eyes."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100269953/no-its-not-racist-to-think-ukip-has-a-point-about-immigration/
Company A can decide whether or not based upon economics it makes sense for it to comply with european standards or forgo trading with the continent. It is company A's decision based upon looking at the economic case not some idiot in brussels deciding all people must comply with his latest hairbrained idea.
In reality what often happens now is people look at what they need to do to comply with all the regulations to produce widget A and decide its not viable to set up a company to do so. Whereas they may find if they only needed to comply with the regulations relevant to the market place in which they wish to sell then it now makes economic sense to set up the company after all.
While I fully agree some standards are good that does not mean all standards are good. Standards existed long before the evil behemoth that is the EU and will exist long after its destruction. Where industries need to interoperate they usually manage to come up with standards without government help or prompting. Example DVD, Bluray, HTML5.
Government gets in the way frankly and tries to suborn standards away from the point they are meant to address and adds in irrelevancies. If for example governments had got involved in the original HTML standard(as you mentioned internet standards) we would have mixed in all sorts of mechanisms to exert control and censorship and not just the standards defining what things mean
"Ukip is doing something very interesting. It is delineating the boundaries between the metropolitan elite and the provincial disaffected – and inviting the two groups to define themselves by opposition to one another.
Implicit in Matthew Parris’ remarks is a dislike of those who wail about the impact of immigration. The pull quote on his article reads, “Many inadequate people blame their problems on foreigners.” That’s a nice sentiment, isn’t it? Those inadequates presumably include out of work plumbers, those stuck on housing waiting lists, parents searching for school places.
Of course, immigration has cultural and economic benefits that a newspaper columnist with a PhD in PPE might be able to quote to satisfy the more learned readers. But don’t dismiss the feelings of less elite subscribers to The Times, Matthew. Or else they might start voting Ukip. Shudder…"
You made that up, and it's clearly not been my position on the EU on here passim. I'm open to leaving the EU, but I need to be persuaded. I'd always looked towards you as being a thoughtful voice on the subject and its implications.
As sometimes happens, UKIP's supporters push me slightly off the fence into the pro-Europe garden. I'll just have to wait for the next bit of EU lunacy to push me straight again. ;-)
If you want to argue for lower animal welfare standards in the UK, so that we fall in with those on the continent and then use our "influence" to persuade everyone else to raise theirs to what ours used to be, well I can see the logic but not, frankly the appeal.
However, I fear I have missed your point. Or on second reading have I?
Disappointingly no mention of Jack's ARSE though!
April 1979
Dear Mrs Collingwood,
At Mrs Thatcher's request I am replying on her behalf to your recent letter.
I hope you will not think me too blunt if I say that it may well be that your Council accommodation is unsatisfactory, but considering the fact that you have been unable to buy your own accommodation you are lucky to have been given something which the rest of us are paying for out of taxes.
With good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Helen Senior pp Matthew Parris Private Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Once the UK starts exerting a libertarian influence on the EU, instead of an authoritarian influence, then you can start to talk about how you might have less hair-brained government interference without the EU.
https://mobile.twitter.com/LesyaOrobets
It is simple. Is that part of your argument or not? If it is then what I have said is valid. If it is not then you should not have thrown it in in the first place.
Some people seem to forget what they have written only a short while before.
The US did not do this. Instead, you had a stupid situation where your phone would not work in different cities. This was fixed, at a cost, by the use of dual- and tri- band phones that supported GSM / CDMA / UMTS etc.
The US market utterly failed, and it's still a mess that's only workable because brainy boffins have made chips that support all of the above standards. Sadly, if anything it's becoming worse with terms like 4G and especially 5G becoming a free-for-all with sparse or no standards.
The Bluray example is interesting, as there was competition with Toshiba's HD-DVD and a vast amount of wasted resources. And when this happens the 'best' solution does not necessarily win - for example VHS vs Betamax. As I've shown above, governments (and governmental organisations) can greatly aid business. The important thing is for them not to get too involved; set a bunch of capable people to do a set task of well-defined but limited scope. This happens all the time.
I'm far from an expert on it, but did French government interference stifle Minitel - the advanced French precursor to the WWW - in the way you mention above?
To make my position clear:
The chances are we will not leave Europe fully, and will still be members of some European organisations, e.g. EFTA. As the rules of those organisations change, we may need to enact legislation accordingly. These would be legislative changes coming from Europe.
However, and this is vital, I do not see the above as a reason for not changing our relationship with the EU.
You claim I think it is.
You are wrong.