@Richard_Tyndall We come down to arguing about odds. I am happy to bet a small percentage of "growth" on the existence of man made global warming, with the return on the stake in the form of unused fossil fuel to future generations. You want to bet against the the opinion of those who study these things with not just your house, but the whole planet. No wonder that you never see a poor "bookie"
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
@Richard_Tyndall We come down to arguing about odds. I am happy to bet a small percentage of "growth" on the existence of man made global warming, with the return on the stake in the form of unused fossil fuel to future generations. You want to bet against the the opinion of those who study these things with not just your house, but the whole planet. No wonder that you never see a poor "bookie"
It is a difficult one for me as I am one of those people 'who study these things' at least in a restrospective sense. It is certainly not fun being in a minority in one's own discipline.
I am not one to comment much on the AGW debate as it is well out of any sphere of competence I might possess.
I saw this statement on twitter and wondered if any of PB's resident climate change experts could comment on its validity:
"Taking energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows the rotation of the earth".
Are our days about to get longer? Will time now start reversing?
:-) No Avery. The whole argument about taking energy from the system is bunkum.
Our days are getting longer (but time is not reversing) - however this is being caused by the Moon affecting the movement of water, resulting in the tidal friction slowing down the earth.
Yep. That's my understanding. It's loss of energy (or rather conversion of energy) to heat by friction. 2nd law of thermodynamics and all that.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
Let's see how well the upstart johnny-come-lately new money in Canary Wharf can compete once the City can set its own corporate tax rates and make its own AML/KYC regulations.
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU didn't and does not bring freedom - certainly not in Eastern Europe. Their freedom from the communist bloc had nothing to do with the EU and it is disingenuous of the EU and its supporters to claim that it did.
Being serious (for a change), I think the true position lies somewhere between your line and that of Dr. Sox.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
"It is ironic that Blair thinks this is a 'brutal and sickening distortion of faith'. The official theologian of his church argues:"
Sigh.
The "official theologian" as you call him, died in 1274. If you think the Catholic Church is still in 1274, I suggest you do a little more reading. You'll find theology texts in any good book shop, or I can send you a reading list.
By the way, the inquisition was abolished a few years ago. And last year, Pope Francis said ""If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" Obviously a heretic, then?
Being serious (for a change), I think the true position lies somewhere between your line and that of Dr. Sox.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were soviet socialist republics, so I don't see how Ukraine is a completely different case.
Being serious (for a change), I think the true position lies somewhere between your line and that of Dr. Sox.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
I think that whilst you are right about the aspirations of the Eastern European states, they have fallen for the same myth that the UK did which is that they are joining a trading bloc of independent self governing countries. They are starting to find out that that is not the case.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
Let's see how well the upstart johnny-come-lately new money in Canary Wharf can compete once the City can set its own corporate tax rates and make its own AML/KYC regulations.
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.
Mr. Palmer, destroying England, which has existed for over a thousand years, is not comparable to leaving a political organisation we entered a few decades ago, and that on the basis of trade.
It's not my impression that England is being destroyed by the EU.
@NickPalmer If the EU is a trade bloc why does it need a Parliament? A High Representative for Foreign Affairs? A currency? A flag? An anthem? Multiple summits annually? Surely a fairly simple agreement with a basic dispute resolution mechanism and ad-hoc bilateral and multi-lateral engagement would more than suffice?
Sure. But we need to work with what there is. Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc. If we want to be part of the trade bloc, we therefore have to decide whether we're willing to accept the integration, apart from such aspects as we might wish to negotiate away. Many Eurosceptics seem to me to propose a choice between what we've got and what they'd like, rather than what we've got and what we might reasonably hope to get.
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.</p>
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
You hit the nail on the head there with one part of your answer. It is NATO. Membership of NATO gives countries far more protection and reassurance than membership of the EU. Again Turkey is a good example of this.
I agree with that, but considering the danger, even if it's 90% NATO 10% the EU, it's not worth the risk. Firm commitments have a tendency to quickly become less firm once challenged by realpolitik, so they want to avoid Germany etc making the argument "Well yes they're in NATO, but that's America's responsibility - it's not like they're in the EU". It's unlikely to be the case, but they just want to make sure they are fully signed up members of the club, and that means joining every Western institution they can.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
Mr. Palmer, destroying England, which has existed for over a thousand years, is not comparable to leaving a political organisation we entered a few decades ago, and that on the basis of trade.
It's not my impression that England is being destroyed by the EU.
@NickPalmer If the EU is a trade bloc why does it need a Parliament? A High Representative for Foreign Affairs? A currency? A flag? An anthem? Multiple summits annually? Surely a fairly simple agreement with a basic dispute resolution mechanism and ad-hoc bilateral and multi-lateral engagement would more than suffice?
Sure. But we need to work with what there is. Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc. If we want to be part of the trade bloc, we therefore have to decide whether we're willing to accept the integration, apart from such aspects as we might wish to negotiate away. Many Eurosceptics seem to me to propose a choice between what we've got and what they'd like, rather than what we've got and what we might reasonably hope to get.
No, 'what we've got' is not one of the options on the table. The choice is between what the EU wants to become and leaving. Either we accept the drift to more integration or we leave. The status quo has never been an option in spite of what Europhiles might try to claim.
The "official theologian" as you call him, died in 1274. If you think the Catholic Church is still in 1274, I suggest you do a little more reading. You'll find theology texts in any good book shop, or I can send you a reading list.
See here for the current attitude to Aquinas' theology. According to the emeritus pope, Aquinas "precisely, clearly and pertinently" sets out the truths of faith.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
You hit the nail on the head there with one part of your answer. It is NATO. Membership of NATO gives countries far more protection and reassurance than membership of the EU. Again Turkey is a good example of this.
I agree with that, but considering the danger, even if it's 90% NATO 10% the EU, it's not worth the risk. Firm commitments have a tendency to quickly become less firm once challenged by realpolitik, so they want to avoid Germany etc making the argument "Well yes they're in NATO, but that's America's responsibility - it's not like they're in the EU". It's unlikely to be the case, but they just want to make sure they are fully signed up members of the club, and that means joining every Western institution they can.
The mutual defence pact is a fundamental part of the protection offered by NATO and when it comes down to it I would be far more confident of the USA offering protection via NATO than the Germans offering it via the EU.
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.</p>
Sounds like the Vatican.
Nah, the Vatican doesn't have the wealth of the City. Also, it can hardly up-sticks and move away - they tried it once and it led to having three popes simultaneously and to the Reformation which cost them a very large chunk of their core business.
Being serious (for a change), I think the true position lies somewhere between your line and that of Dr. Sox.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were soviet socialist republics, so I don't see how Ukraine is a completely different case.
They all had independent democratic governments in the interwar years. They also had their Hanseatic League and Prussian historical links to separate their culture and history from that of the other Soviet Republics.
Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius are all 'central European' cities in a way that Kiev and Minsk, for example, for all their attractions as cities (in Minsk's case none) aren't.
And the problem is even worse when land mass is considered. The Baltics are essentially 'city states'. Belarus and particularly the Ukraine, have vast hinterlands which are decades behind the development of their capital cities.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
Let's see how well the upstart johnny-come-lately new money in Canary Wharf can compete once the City can set its own corporate tax rates and make its own AML/KYC regulations.
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.</p>
Right, if the UK wouldn't cut them a deal to their satisfaction they could just rent a square mile somewhere somewhere more hospitable and build a replica. Maybe they should go ahead and build a backup City of London somewhere in any case, just to be on the safe side.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
What about methane?
@Richard_Tyndall Is it your opinion that CO2 concentration is increasing, but that that will be without significant consequences? likewise for methane as Socrates says (actually, is methane suuposed to be increasing? How durable is it in the atmosphere?)
"Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc."
That's very honest and true. But it's not what we agreed to in 1975. But your leader doesn't think we need to agree to a new direction - he knows best - and that mindset could lose you the next election.
Personally, I'd like a robust risk/benefit analysis to decide. Not a hidden agenda.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
What about methane?
Again methane releases are a natural part of our planetary cycle. The damage being caused by black carbon is measurable, immediate and undeniably man made. A significant part of what had previously been ascribed to CO2 influence in places like the Himalayas is now being identified as black carbon induced. If we want to deal with an issue that is causing immediate concerns then that is where we should be looking.
Being serious (for a change), I think the true position lies somewhere between your line and that of Dr. Sox.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
I think that whilst you are right about the aspirations of the Eastern European states, they have fallen for the same myth that the UK did which is that they are joining a trading bloc of independent self governing countries. They are starting to find out that that is not the case.
I think they wanted more than just a trading bloc. They saw the EU as benevolent parents.
Still you may be right about finding out that what they wanted on accession may not be what they want in the future. Children grow up and, impudently, demand independence!
The mutual defence pact is a fundamental part of the protection offered by NATO and when it comes down to it I would be far more confident of the USA offering protection via NATO than the Germans offering it via the EU.
So do I. However, I reckon the chances of the USA going to war over any of the ex-Soviet states as close to zero as you can get. The chances of a European member of NATO going to war with Russia over, say, an invasion of Poland is even smaller. NATO is a pact whose time and purpose has been and gone. It is hanging on like a beloved old spaniel that nobody has the courage to put out of its misery.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
I agree with you that many of the former Eastern-bloc countries have embraced a western alliance as protection from Russian ambitions, but synthetic outrage notwithstanding, what is Russia actually 'getting away with' in Ukraine? I genuinely can't fathom it. Let's assume the worst and take it that they are fomenting the popular rebellion in the east of the country, as well as arming and abetting the separatists -no more than we're currently doing in Syria, (at a cost of 100,000 lives and counting) and without having Al Qaeda as bedfellows.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
What about methane?
@Richard_Tyndall Is it your opinion that CO2 concentration is increasing, but that that will be without significant consequences? likewise for methane as Socrates says (actually, is methane suuposed to be increasing? How durable is it in the atmosphere?)
Yes. That is exactly my position. Methane release is ongoing and has been for the last 12,000 years. Not sure on how quickly it gets locked back up in the cycle though and it is exceedingly small amounts in atmospheric terms. .
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.</p>
Sounds like the Vatican.
Nah, the Vatican doesn't have the wealth of the City. Also, it can hardly up-sticks and move away - they tried it once and it led to having three popes simultaneously and to the Reformation which cost them a very large chunk of their core business.
Maybe we should suggest that they move Pope Benedict out to Avignon. Imagine the worry that would cause :-)
"According to the emeritus pope, Aquinas "precisely, clearly and pertinently" sets out the truths of faith."
Benedict was known as a Thomian and a hard-liner but as I recollect, very few heretics were burnt at the stake during his reign. Or did they manage to keep it secret?
So they should be safe as long as they avoid Blackfriars Bridge.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
Let's see how well the upstart johnny-come-lately new money in Canary Wharf can compete once the City can set its own corporate tax rates and make its own AML/KYC regulations.
Its an interesting thought, a state in which there is minimal population (<10,000) and which is wholly dependent on another state not only for its workers but for every service and yet is fantastically wealthy and if invaded could just up-sticks and go elsewhere.</p>
Right, if the UK wouldn't cut them a deal to their satisfaction they could just rent a square mile somewhere somewhere more hospitable and build a replica. Maybe they should go ahead and build a backup City of London somewhere in any case, just to be on the safe side.
They have, Mr. Edmund, or hadn't you noticed. And not just one. Singapore, Geneva, Dubai, Hong Kong and New York are all just sitting there waiting for the trade to be forced out of London. Frankfurt is too,but they will be disappointed.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
What about methane?
@Richard_Tyndall Is it your opinion that CO2 concentration is increasing, but that that will be without significant consequences? likewise for methane as Socrates says (actually, is methane suuposed to be increasing? How durable is it in the atmosphere?)
Yes. That is exactly my position. Methane release is ongoing and has been for the last 12,000 years. Not sure on how quickly it gets locked back up in the cycle though and it is exceedingly small amounts in atmospheric terms. .
Thanks for the clarification. Wonder if Chuck Hegel wants to have a pop about those black carbon emissions, while he's about it?
But whether or not they want to establish the rule of law and minority rights the Turks and Serbs have to do so to join the EU. That is why it needs to be a political as well as Trade bloc.
The East European countries know that NATO obligations rest on integration into other aspects of European politics. The EU and NATO are joint foundations, one with guns and one with butter.
A peaceful Europe with the rule of law is in Britain's interest which is why I support us remaining in the EU. Westminster is the mother of parliaments in Europe as well as the Anglosphere. It is something to be proud of, but also has its obligations.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
The "City" moves. Can it pack up the land, factories, and houses, into a suitcase? It could put a few "promissory" notes and bonds in there, but the value of a great majority of those will crash. All the wealth they can take with them is in the form of a "promise" and the perceived value of those notes when they reach a new destination. This is the basic fact that needs to remain a hidden secret. or what you perceive as wealth vanishes like melting snow
But whether or not they want to establish the rule of law and minority rights the Turks and Serbs have to do so to join the EU. That is why it needs to be a political as well as Trade bloc.
The East European countries know that NATO obligations rest on integration into other aspects of European politics. The EU and NATO are joint foundations, one with guns and one with butter.
A peaceful Europe with the rule of law is in Britain's interest which is why I support us remaining in the EU. Westminster is the mother of parliaments in Europe as well as the Anglosphere. It is something to be proud of, but also has its obligations.
As long as the EU exists, those incentives for Turkey and Serbia exist just as much regardless of UK membership.
The "City" moves. Can it pack up the land, factories, and houses, into a suitcase? It could put a few "promissory" notes and bonds in there, but the value of a great majority of those will crash. All the wealth they can take with them is in the form of a "promise" and the perceived value of those notes when they reach a new destination. This is the basic fact that needs to remain a hidden secret. or what you perceive as wealth vanishes like melting snow
Comrade, when we are talking about the City of London you don't actually have a clue what we are talking about, do you?
"Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc."
That's very honest and true. But it's not what we agreed to in 1975. But your leader doesn't think we need to agree to a new direction - he knows best - and that mindset could lose you the next election.
Personally, I'd like a robust risk/benefit analysis to decide. Not a hidden agenda.
Ironically I actually opposed membership in 1975, for Bennite reasons. But as Socrates notes (albeit with perplexity), the major parties do think that pulling out of it now would be disastrous, and won't offer a referendum which could reasonably be expected to lead to that. To take Socrates' other example, I'd also oppose a refrendum on secession of SE England, for the same reason.
I quite like direct democracy as in Switzerland, and maybe wouldn't bother to be an MP if we had one, but as long as we have a representational democracy, I think MPs have a duty to avoid offering things that they sincerely think would be disastrous. There isn't a hidden agenda - we are all quite open about it (unless you count Cameron's referendum on a non-existent 2017 treaty, which is clearly designed to circumvent demands for exit).
Forgot to reply to the post suggesting that we could belong to both the EEA and NAFTA. We can't, unless the current negotiations on a joint free trade area are successful - we would instantly be a conduit for circumventing all EU-US trade barriers before their removal had been agreed. It wouldn't be acceptable to either of them.
Thanks all for the civil discussion. I'll have to leave it there for now - work beckons.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
I agree with you that many of the former Eastern-bloc countries have embraced a western alliance as protection from Russian ambitions, but synthetic outrage notwithstanding, what is Russia actually 'getting away with' in Ukraine? I genuinely can't fathom it. Let's assume the worst and take it that they are fomenting the popular rebellion in the east of the country, as well as arming and abetting the separatists -no more than we're currently doing in Syria, (at a cost of 100,000 lives and counting) and without having Al Qaeda as bedfellows.
We backed rebels in Syria to help end Assad's brutal dictatorship, which was slaughtering people en masse. Russia is doing it to a government that wasn't killing anyone, in order to annex parts of their territory. Generally we don't allow countries to annex part of their neighbours. This isnt' hard.
Presumably you accept that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Do you believe that CO2 doesn't trap heat as much as the laboratory studies find, or do you believe it won't contribute to it on a global basis because of some feedback effect?
A better idea than you apparently. Or perhaps you believe that only those already working in the "City" are the only ones capable of running insurance and investment companies? If you invest in oil reserves in a country, and that country decides to nationalize those assets, what will you do? Invade it to reclaim your losses? The country that has "stolen" your investment may become a world pariah for a while, but greed will eventually lure a new set of believers/investors.
Mr. Palmer, I fear you've wilfully misunderstood what I wrote, which was a reply to your suggestion that leaving the EU would be like this:
"It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester."
Mr. Palmer, destroying England, which has existed for over a thousand years, is not comparable to leaving a political organisation we entered a few decades ago, and that on the basis of trade.
It's not my impression that England is being destroyed by the EU.
@NickPalmer If the EU is a trade bloc why does it need a Parliament? A High Representative for Foreign Affairs? A currency? A flag? An anthem? Multiple summits annually? Surely a fairly simple agreement with a basic dispute resolution mechanism and ad-hoc bilateral and multi-lateral engagement would more than suffice?
Sure. But we need to work with what there is. Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc. If we want to be part of the trade bloc, we therefore have to decide whether we're willing to accept the integration, apart from such aspects as we might wish to negotiate away. Many Eurosceptics seem to me to propose a choice between what we've got and what they'd like, rather than what we've got and what we might reasonably hope to get.
Do you regard a simple Free Trade Agreement, as South Korea and Mexico have with the EU, as unreasonable to get?
A better idea than you apparently. Or perhaps you believe that only those already working in the "City" are the only ones capable of running insurance and investment companies? If you invest in oil reserves in a country, and that country decides to nationalize those assets, what will you do? Invade it to reclaim your losses? The country that has "stolen" your investment may become a world pariah for a while, but greed will eventually lure a new set of believers/investors.
Is your house worth more than you paid for it?, and if your answer is yes, why is this? (bearing in mind that like any other asset, it is liable to the wear and tear of prolonged usage)
Forgot to reply to the post suggesting that we could belong to both the EEA and NAFTA. We can't, unless the current negotiations on a joint free trade area are successful - we would instantly be a conduit for circumventing all EU-US trade barriers before their removal had been agreed. It wouldn't be acceptable to either of them.
This is 100% wrong - as is clear by the fact that NAFTA member Canada and EEA member Norway have free trade, but it doesn't circumvent EU-US trade barriers.
Is your house worth more than you paid for it?, and if your answer is yes, why is this? (bearing in mind that like any other asset, it is liable to the wear and tear of prolonged usage)
Smarmy
Estate agents refer to "wear and tear" as "patination".
In certain segments of the property market such patination increases value.
Presumably you accept that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Do you believe that CO2 doesn't trap heat as much as the laboratory studies find, or do you believe it won't contribute to it on a global basis because of some feedback effect?
I ought to (and do) accept the greenhouse principle of CO2. After all it was my own Great Great Uncle who devised it. :-)
But yes the whole debate (or at least the serious scientific debate) is about the relative strengths of positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
For those that take the view "while the EU might not be in our interest, it is good for the world because it helps out Eastern Europe", I would like to bring another element to the discussion. By being members of the EU, we dramatically booster, and add our national economy to, the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP is the largest system of agricultural subsidies and protectionism in the world. It's whole design is based around preventing the importation of food from poorer countries on a competitive basis. And worse than that, it actually dumps food on the world market at below market prices.
This fundamentally hinders the economic development of Africa, where most of the world's absolute poor live. About half of Africa's population live in rural areas, where agriculture is by far and away the biggest source of income. And we hold those incomes back, by preventing them from exporting in any major way to the main rich market they would naturally benefit from. This is a tragic abomination, and, given the desparateness of these people, is clearly a larger harm to the world than any slight positive in Eastern Europe.
Yes, and when those houses become really "patinated". the owners start wailing for someone to come and renovate them for the sake of "history"
Smarmy
Don't worry. The preservation of "history" justifies subsidy.
The assistance provided by tax concession and charitable grant is genuinely progressive.
The old kitchens and service accommodation, in today's era of fairness and equality, get renovated too.
Not sure where Smarmeron gets the idea people in listed buildings get financial help. I have spent years renovating a 17th century listed building and never asked for or received a penny in public money .
@Richard_Tyndall Not everyone does, someone bought an old ruin of a castle near me for a few hundred pounds, and renovated it mainly through his own work, Of course, once it became "habitable" again, he could claim some of it back against tax, and the ruin is now a listed building worth the kind of money only a rich TV presenter could afford. Do I begrudge him this? No, he had an idea and put in the work. Someone demanding a grant to replace his thatched roof, not so much.
Yes, and when those houses become really "patinated". the owners start wailing for someone to come and renovate them for the sake of "history"
Smarmy
Don't worry. The preservation of "history" justifies subsidy.
The assistance provided by tax concession and charitable grant is genuinely progressive.
The old kitchens and service accommodation, in today's era of fairness and equality, get renovated too.
Not sure where Smarmeron gets the idea people in listed buildings get financial help. I have spent years renovating a 17th century listed building and never asked for or received a penny in public money .
Lovely people, English Heritage, aren't they?
Really understand cost-benefit.
P.S. You should have been able to take advantage of VAT exemptions.
"but as long as we have a representational democracy, I think MPs have a duty to avoid offering things that they sincerely think would be disastrous."
If we do end up in a Federation of Europe. which seems to be the aim, then your work will be done anyway, as very few laws will be made by a UK Parliament. Whether the European parliament will be anything more than a talking shop or a rubber stamp may also be worthy of discussion.
If it is a cash drain, either convert it into flats, or pull it down a put in a modern and efficient housing estate. After all, a failing company (like shipbuilding) should never be subsidized, even on the grounds of history, if not the economy, do you need special consideration?
@Richard_Tyndall Not everyone does, someone bought an old ruin of a castle near me for a few hundred pounds, and renovated it mainly through his own work, Of course, once it became "habitable" again, he could claim some of it back against tax, and the ruin is now a listed building worth the kind of money only a rich TV presenter could afford. Do I begrudge him this? No, he had an idea and put in the work. Someone demanding a grant to replace his thatched roof, not so much.
Was it an "Ancient Monument"?
If so, he has been very clever and at the bleeding edge of preservation practice.
And deserves what little increase in value (after deduction of development costs including archaeological surveys) he has realised.
This sort of 'speculation' is not the "unacceptable face of capitalism".
"Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc."
That's very honest and true. But it's not what we agreed to in 1975. But your leader doesn't think we need to agree to a new direction - he knows best - and that mindset could lose you the next election.
Personally, I'd like a robust risk/benefit analysis to decide. Not a hidden agenda.
Ironically I actually opposed membership in 1975, for Bennite reasons. But as Socrates notes (albeit with
Forgot to reply to the post suggesting that we could belong to both the EEA and NAFTA. We can't, unless the current negotiations on a joint free trade area are successful - we would instantly be a conduit for circumventing all EU-US trade barriers before their removal had been agreed. It wouldn't be acceptable to either of them.
What about Canada - member of NAFTA and with a free trade agreement with EFTA - who themselves have a free-trade status with the rest of the EEA?
If it is a cash drain, either convert it into flats, or pull it down a put in a modern and efficient housing estate. After all, a failing company (like shipbuilding) should never be subsidized, even on the grounds of history, if not the economy, do you need special consideration?
A very vulgar suggestion, Smarmy.
It is the unused dockyards which should be converted into flats.
If the desolate North created more St Katharine Docks there would not be such a 'housing crisis'.
I am in favour of CAP reform, but Countries such as USA and Japan have major tariff and non tariff barriers against African agricultural exports. How would CAP reform be enhanced by us leaving the EU? And would not there be just as much incentive for us to have protectionist tariffs on our own?
For those that take the view "while the EU might not be in our interest, it is good for the world because it helps out Eastern Europe", I would like to bring another element to the discussion. By being members of the EU, we dramatically booster, and add our national economy to, the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP is the largest system of agricultural subsidies and protectionism in the world. It's whole design is based around preventing the importation of food from poorer countries on a competitive basis. And worse than that, it actually dumps food on the world market at below market prices.
This fundamentally hinders the economic development of Africa, where most of the world's absolute poor live. About half of Africa's population live in rural areas, where agriculture is by far and away the biggest source of income. And we hold those incomes back, by preventing them from exporting in any major way to the main rich market they would naturally benefit from. This is a tragic abomination, and, given the desparateness of these people, is clearly a larger harm to the world than any slight positive in Eastern Europe.
@AveryLP You did read the post, or did you just make an assumption?
I did, Smarmy, but I didn't understand it all.
Far be it from me to apportion blame for my failings.
P.S. Just realised we may be referring to different posts. I guess you are claiming exemption on the basis of your "thatched roof" comment. I was referring to the intelligibility of your shipbuilding history post.
What's vulgar about turfing some Lord out of his house if he can't maintain it without subsidy? Think how many Polish farm workers could be housed in one of those ancestral piles? Think of the profit!
And again Socrates, Norway is in that EEA and as such is subject to EU single market rules. And as such it will have to abide by the EU Canada enhanced trade agreement. It does not have free trade as such, it goes by what the EU does in respect of its trading rules and single market agreements and has no votes in sorting out what that is.
Yes, and when those houses become really "patinated". the owners start wailing for someone to come and renovate them for the sake of "history"
Smarmy
Don't worry. The preservation of "history" justifies subsidy.
The assistance provided by tax concession and charitable grant is genuinely progressive.
The old kitchens and service accommodation, in today's era of fairness and equality, get renovated too.
Not sure where Smarmeron gets the idea people in listed buildings get financial help. I have spent years renovating a 17th century listed building and never asked for or received a penny in public money .
Lovely people, English Heritage, aren't they?
Really understand cost-benefit.
P.S. You should have been able to take advantage of VAT exemptions.
VAT exemptions have been removed. Not that I object to that per se. I am not sure why anyone should support me renovating my own home even if there is a long term benefit in the preservation of the property.
What matters is that English Heritage are reasonable in their dealings with the property owner. Thankfully in our case they realised that stopping the deterioration was more important than putting right the illegal stuff that had been done before we bought it (lots of PVC windows put in facing away from the road). For me that is what made the difference. In time everything will be restored but we wanted to make sure we stopped the rot (literally) before we started putting stuff back to how it should be.
You do of course realise that if you can't afford to maintain a property, the local council can take ownership? Actually, you probably don't, that law is only for the "lower orders"
And again Socrates, Norway is in that EEA and as such is subject to EU single market rules. And as such it will have to abide by the EU Canada enhanced trade agreement. It does not have free trade as such, it goes by what the EU does in respect of its trading rules and single market agreements and has no votes in sorting out what that is.
Not so. The EFTA-Canada trade agreement has been in existence since 2009 whilst the EU still does not have a trade agreement sealed with Canada.
And again Socrates, Norway is in that EEA and as such is subject to EU single market rules. And as such it will have to abide by the EU Canada enhanced trade agreement. It does not have free trade as such, it goes by what the EU does in respect of its trading rules and single market agreements and has no votes in sorting out what that is.
Well, it doesn't have a vote in the European Parliament (no MEPs of course), but there are a series of consultation and agreement bodies with the EEA. The "fax democracy" line, which is the concept often trotted out, was one made up by the "Yes" side in Norway's own referendum some years back and deliberately glosses over quite a lot of say.
Yes, and when those houses become really "patinated". the owners start wailing for someone to come and renovate them for the sake of "history"
Smarmy
Don't worry. The preservation of "history" justifies subsidy.
The assistance provided by tax concession and charitable grant is genuinely progressive.
The old kitchens and service accommodation, in today's era of fairness and equality, get renovated too.
Not sure where Smarmeron gets the idea people in listed buildings get financial help. I have spent years renovating a 17th century listed building and never asked for or received a penny in public money .
Lovely people, English Heritage, aren't they?
Really understand cost-benefit.
P.S. You should have been able to take advantage of VAT exemptions.
VAT exemptions have been removed. Not that I object to that per se. I am not sure why anyone should support me renovating my own home even if there is a long term benefit in the preservation of the property.
What matters is that English Heritage are reasonable in their dealings with the property owner. Thankfully in our case they realised that stopping the deterioration was more important than putting right the illegal stuff that had been done before we bought it (lots of PVC windows put in facing away from the road). For me that is what made the difference. In time everything will be restored but we wanted to make sure we stopped the rot (literally) before we started putting stuff back to how it should be.
I was being a little unfair to EH who are usually right and reasonable but nonetheless a costly pain in the arse.
But they do work on the assumption that the "gentrification impulse" and the resources of new owners absolves them from the responsibility of cost-benefit analysis.
And when they get hold of the property for themselves they pour taxpayer's money in without any hope of recovery.
My favourite bugbear of the moment is Apethorpe Hall which was bought by compulsory purchase under Tesssa Jowell (I think) and has increasingly become a captured interest project for EH. It is not the preservation work which they have done, which is undoubtedly first class, but the imposition of the requirement that the property must remain a single family residence and not be redeveloped into mutiple residential units, institutional or commercial use. Freezing development and being inflexible on change of use does not, in the long term, preserve our heritage.
Top comment at the moment: @12 - Svantes Arrhenius and Tyndall proved the link over a century ago. It's possible to prove empirically. The evidence is pretty unequivocal.
MRNAMELESS 'In Newark at the moment. Tens of Tories milling about and a number of Labour teams, but outnumbered and outgunned by probably over a hundred UKIP activists with megaphones and a car replete with flags.'
What's vulgar about turfing some Lord out of his house if he can't maintain it without subsidy? Think how many Polish farm workers could be housed in one of those ancestral piles? Think of the profit!
All options should be considered, Smarmy.
Rarely though is maximising profit the principal consideration. But ignoring financial viability completely is nonsensical. As a Pauline on such matters, I would argue balance is all.
The CAP is now a much smaller percentage of the EU budget than it one was, and while slow, reform has happened. For this to continue to occur we need a strong UK presence in the European parliament; but what we got last week were a bunch of no show loadmouths like the awful shouty Boars on QT the other night.
The EU is a better place for having us within it, and we are a better place for being in it.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
Alas, Mr. Edmund, The City is not the power it once was. They made a horrible mistake when they allowed Canary Wharf to be developed without them being in charge of it. Much trade and, thus, money has been lost as a result. Some of us tried to warn them but we were as voices crying in the wilderness.
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
Let's see how well the upstart johnny-come-lately new money in Canary Wharf can compete once the City can set its own corporate tax rates and make its own AML/KYC regulations.
The TBTF banks can't operate at 33:1 capital ratios without tens of millions of tax serfs backstopping their potential losses.
So in their current form they can't move anywhere unless they arrange in advance a new supply of tax serfs in the new location.
MRNAMELESS 'In Newark at the moment. Tens of Tories milling about and a number of Labour teams, but outnumbered and outgunned by probably over a hundred UKIP activists with megaphones and a car replete with flags.'
Standing in the middle of the town square and shouting isn't the most effective mechanism for campaigning.
Top comment at the moment: @12 - Svantes Arrhenius and Tyndall proved the link over a century ago. It's possible to prove empirically. The evidence is pretty unequivocal.
Indeed. Unfortunately those making such comments (and it seems most of the politicians as well as the amateurs on both sides of the argument ) fail to understand that the question has never been about basic physics and the properties of gases. It is about the relative strengths put on feedback mechanisms by the various models. It is these that make the difference between effectively no CO2 induced warming and potentially catastrophic increases in temperature.
I am all in favour of balance Limp Pole, Use the money to improve and build the type of houses people need. Then pull down those big houses and build houses for the locals. This will help reduce house price inflation for the poorer people, and at the same time increasing the value of the remaining "Manor Houses"? A "win win" result as I am sure you will agree?
The CAP is now a much smaller percentage of the EU budget than it one was, and while slow, reform has happened. For this to continue to occur we need a strong UK presence in the European parliament; but what we got last week were a bunch of no show loadmouths like the awful shouty Boars on QT the other night.
The EU is a better place for having us within it, and we are a better place for being in it.
Is Apethorpe Hall open to the public? or do they have plans to do so? If not, I could see your point.
It is partly open to the public. During the summer and at specified times. The state rooms have been restored and the roof walk so it is worth a visit but the vast majority of the property is either dilapidated/dangerous and unvisitable or undergoing Phase n+1 of the creeping state renovation project.
One of the silliest requirements of the planning authorities is to insist on restoring all the green houses of the late 19th century together with their mechanical venting fittings. When will EH realise that in the 21st century not even a billionaire grows his own grapes under glass in the Midlands?
Waitrose does that for all of us: a great leveller.
So Apethorpe Hall continues in state ownership, ten million sunk costs and no sale possible because of usage and development restrictions.
Preservation correctness gawn wrong, IMHO. Enough to turn me into a kipper.
@AveryLP We may have a point of agreement? We could legalize cannabis growing, and use those greenhouses for the "herb" to be sold in state licensed outlets. The profit margins should be enough to cover the inefficiencies of the antiquated systems with money left over?
It is ironic that Blair thinks this is a 'brutal and sickening distortion of faith'. The official theologian of his church argues:
'As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death... [A]n apostate is good for nothing.' [T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, [Blackfriars edit. 1975], vol. 32: Consequences of Faith, (trans. T. Gilby) pp. 89-99]
Why, Mr Blair, beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own?
To be fair to Blair (not something you'll often hear me say) I don't see how this poor lady could even be considered an apostate, as she has never been a Muslim.
I am all in favour of balance Limp Pole, Use the money to improve and build the type of houses people need. Then pull down those big houses and build houses for the locals. This will help reduce house price inflation for the poorer people, and at the same time increasing the value of the remaining "Manor Houses"? A "win win" result as I am sure you will agree?
Pulling down those big houses is cultural vandalism, Smarmy.
It reminds me of Alan Bennett referring to the closure of public libraries as "child abuse", though he may be more circumspect about using such language post Charlize Theron's remarks on rape.
The long gallery at Apethorpe Hall could indeed sleep a hundred fruit pickers. Although when an Approved School for Boys (1948-1982 - roughly) it was subdivided. If I remember the historical accounts correctly, this happened after some undesired fruit picking of which Alan Bennett would not approve.
We backed rebels in Syria to help end Assad's brutal dictatorship, which was slaughtering people en masse. Russia is doing it to a government that wasn't killing anyone, in order to annex parts of their territory. Generally we don't allow countries to annex part of their neighbours. This isnt' hard.
@Socrates On the contrary, the two situations are virtually identical. A popular uprising, a brutal response (I take it you've not heard of the Odessa massacre if you believe the Kiev Government to be innocent of killing anyone), developing into a civil war. The only discernible difference is that Russia's actions are in their own back yard. America (and sadly the rest of us) is projecting its will upon people thousands of miles away, with no legitimate strategic interests at stake. I would have thought a supporter of UKIP would be better able to detect and dismiss a bogus media narrative.
Comments
We come down to arguing about odds.
I am happy to bet a small percentage of "growth" on the existence of man made global warming, with the return on the stake in the form of unused fossil fuel to future generations.
You want to bet against the the opinion of those who study these things with not just your house, but the whole planet.
No wonder that you never see a poor "bookie"
Mind you the Corporation is still a power in the land (the Met's last attempt to take over the City Police got seen off just as all the previous attempts were) and the "soft power" wielded by the Livery Companies makes the Free Masons look like a parish council in Cornwall.
The mittel Europa countries who came under the Soviet yoke post 1944, had only four and a half decades or just over two generations of imposed communism. So the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, Poland and even the Baltic States had living memory of democratic free markets and a tradition and culture to follow. When the Soviet Empire collapsed it was natural for their populations to look West, align with what they saw as a uniting EU and try to revive the institutions of the past.
Travelling to Prague, for example, in the late 1980s and early 90s, so through the Velvet Revolution, I remember constantly being told that Czech[osolovakia] was "once the fifth largest economy in Europe". It was an aspiration to return to that glory which drove these countries into the EU, and, for all the faults of Brussels, the assistance provided them in the transition was invaluable.
The same strength of case cannot be made for some of the Balkan countries, Moldova, Romania and, even less, for Ukraine, Belarus bloc of current targets. It is seventy years of communist legacy and before that Russian imperialist rule which needs to be adapted to western European social, political and economic norms. A much more difficult task and one which would best be taken slowly and worked from the inside out: i.e. from Moscow to Brest and Odessa not in the reverse direction.
Sigh.
The "official theologian" as you call him, died in 1274. If you think the Catholic Church is still in 1274, I suggest you do a little more reading. You'll find theology texts in any good book shop, or I can send you a reading list.
By the way, the inquisition was abolished a few years ago. And last year, Pope Francis said ""If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" Obviously a heretic, then?
George Eaton @georgeeaton
I haven't heard Tony Blair quoted this favourably at a conference for years. Lots of love among Labour for his attack on UKIP. #pac14
These labour members are so sad and out of touch.
Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius are all 'central European' cities in a way that Kiev and Minsk, for example, for all their attractions as cities (in Minsk's case none) aren't.
And the problem is even worse when land mass is considered. The Baltics are essentially 'city states'. Belarus and particularly the Ukraine, have vast hinterlands which are decades behind the development of their capital cities.
The "City" may be able to pick up sticks and leave, but much of it's wealth is either "fixed" or in the form of "faith based" intangibles.
"Most EU countries think that gradually integrating is a good idea, rather than just settling for a trade bloc."
That's very honest and true. But it's not what we agreed to in 1975. But your leader doesn't think we need to agree to a new direction - he knows best - and that mindset could lose you the next election.
Personally, I'd like a robust risk/benefit analysis to decide. Not a hidden agenda.
Still you may be right about finding out that what they wanted on accession may not be what they want in the future. Children grow up and, impudently, demand independence!
Benedict was known as a Thomian and a hard-liner but as I recollect, very few heretics were burnt at the stake during his reign. Or did they manage to keep it secret?
So they should be safe as long as they avoid Blackfriars Bridge.
The East European countries know that NATO obligations rest on integration into other aspects of European politics. The EU and NATO are joint foundations, one with guns and one with butter.
A peaceful Europe with the rule of law is in Britain's interest which is why I support us remaining in the EU. Westminster is the mother of parliaments in Europe as well as the Anglosphere. It is something to be proud of, but also has its obligations.
The "City" moves. Can it pack up the land, factories, and houses, into a suitcase? It could put a few "promissory" notes and bonds in there, but the value of a great majority of those will crash.
All the wealth they can take with them is in the form of a "promise" and the perceived value of those notes when they reach a new destination.
This is the basic fact that needs to remain a hidden secret. or what you perceive as wealth vanishes like melting snow
I quite like direct democracy as in Switzerland, and maybe wouldn't bother to be an MP if we had one, but as long as we have a representational democracy, I think MPs have a duty to avoid offering things that they sincerely think would be disastrous. There isn't a hidden agenda - we are all quite open about it (unless you count Cameron's referendum on a non-existent 2017 treaty, which is clearly designed to circumvent demands for exit).
Forgot to reply to the post suggesting that we could belong to both the EEA and NAFTA. We can't, unless the current negotiations on a joint free trade area are successful - we would instantly be a conduit for circumventing all EU-US trade barriers before their removal had been agreed. It wouldn't be acceptable to either of them.
Thanks all for the civil discussion. I'll have to leave it there for now - work beckons.
Presumably you accept that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Do you believe that CO2 doesn't trap heat as much as the laboratory studies find, or do you believe it won't contribute to it on a global basis because of some feedback effect?
A better idea than you apparently. Or perhaps you believe that only those already working in the "City" are the only ones capable of running insurance and investment companies?
If you invest in oil reserves in a country, and that country decides to nationalize those assets, what will you do? Invade it to reclaim your losses?
The country that has "stolen" your investment may become a world pariah for a while, but greed will eventually lure a new set of believers/investors.
Mr. Palmer, I fear you've wilfully misunderstood what I wrote, which was a reply to your suggestion that leaving the EU would be like this:
"It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester."
Is your house worth more than you paid for it?, and if your answer is yes, why is this?
(bearing in mind that like any other asset, it is liable to the wear and tear of prolonged usage)
Estate agents refer to "wear and tear" as "patination".
In certain segments of the property market such patination increases value.
Yes, and when those houses become really "patinated". the owners start wailing for someone to come and renovate them for the sake of "history"
But yes the whole debate (or at least the serious scientific debate) is about the relative strengths of positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
This fundamentally hinders the economic development of Africa, where most of the world's absolute poor live. About half of Africa's population live in rural areas, where agriculture is by far and away the biggest source of income. And we hold those incomes back, by preventing them from exporting in any major way to the main rich market they would naturally benefit from. This is a tragic abomination, and, given the desparateness of these people, is clearly a larger harm to the world than any slight positive in Eastern Europe.
Don't worry. The preservation of "history" justifies subsidy.
The assistance provided by tax concession and charitable grant is genuinely progressive.
The old kitchens and service accommodation, in today's era of fairness and equality, get renovated too.
Of course Limp Pole, you can always justify a tax break for yourself, after all, housing is an investment opportunity, not a neccesity.
In my experience, most properties of the type being discussed are cash drains.
Only a true Gordonian would describe such maintenance and renovation costs as "investments".
Not everyone does, someone bought an old ruin of a castle near me for a few hundred pounds, and renovated it mainly through his own work, Of course, once it became "habitable" again, he could claim some of it back against tax, and the ruin is now a listed building worth the kind of money only a rich TV presenter could afford.
Do I begrudge him this? No, he had an idea and put in the work. Someone demanding a grant to replace his thatched roof, not so much.
Really understand cost-benefit.
P.S. You should have been able to take advantage of VAT exemptions.
If you're still here ...
"but as long as we have a representational democracy, I think MPs have a duty to avoid offering things that they sincerely think would be disastrous."
If we do end up in a Federation of Europe. which seems to be the aim, then your work will be done anyway, as very few laws will be made by a UK Parliament. Whether the European parliament will be anything more than a talking shop or a rubber stamp may also be worthy of discussion.
If it is a cash drain, either convert it into flats, or pull it down a put in a modern and efficient housing estate. After all, a failing company (like shipbuilding) should never be subsidized, even on the grounds of history, if not the economy, do you need special consideration?
If so, he has been very clever and at the bleeding edge of preservation practice.
And deserves what little increase in value (after deduction of development costs including archaeological surveys) he has realised.
This sort of 'speculation' is not the "unacceptable face of capitalism".
It is the unused dockyards which should be converted into flats.
If the desolate North created more St Katharine Docks there would not be such a 'housing crisis'.
You did read the post, or did you just make an assumption?
and
Far be it from me to apportion blame for my failings.
P.S. Just realised we may be referring to different posts. I guess you are claiming exemption on the basis of your "thatched roof" comment. I was referring to the intelligibility of your shipbuilding history post.
What's vulgar about turfing some Lord out of his house if he can't maintain it without subsidy?
Think how many Polish farm workers could be housed in one of those ancestral piles?
Think of the profit!
What matters is that English Heritage are reasonable in their dealings with the property owner. Thankfully in our case they realised that stopping the deterioration was more important than putting right the illegal stuff that had been done before we bought it (lots of PVC windows put in facing away from the road). For me that is what made the difference. In time everything will be restored but we wanted to make sure we stopped the rot (literally) before we started putting stuff back to how it should be.
You do of course realise that if you can't afford to maintain a property, the local council can take ownership? Actually, you probably don't, that law is only for the "lower orders"
The "fax democracy" line, which is the concept often trotted out, was one made up by the "Yes" side in Norway's own referendum some years back and deliberately glosses over quite a lot of say.
But they do work on the assumption that the "gentrification impulse" and the resources of new owners absolves them from the responsibility of cost-benefit analysis.
And when they get hold of the property for themselves they pour taxpayer's money in without any hope of recovery.
My favourite bugbear of the moment is Apethorpe Hall which was bought by compulsory purchase under Tesssa Jowell (I think) and has increasingly become a captured interest project for EH. It is not the preservation work which they have done, which is undoubtedly first class, but the imposition of the requirement that the property must remain a single family residence and not be redeveloped into mutiple residential units, institutional or commercial use. Freezing development and being inflexible on change of use does not, in the long term, preserve our heritage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27642463
Top comment at the moment:
@12 - Svantes Arrhenius and Tyndall proved the link over a century ago. It's possible to prove empirically. The evidence is pretty unequivocal.
MRNAMELESS
'In Newark at the moment. Tens of Tories milling about and a number of Labour teams, but outnumbered and outgunned by probably over a hundred UKIP activists with megaphones and a car replete with flags.'
Is Apethorpe Hall open to the public? or do they have plans to do so? If not, I could see your point.
Rarely though is maximising profit the principal consideration. But ignoring financial viability completely is nonsensical. As a Pauline on such matters, I would argue balance is all.
The CAP is now a much smaller percentage of the EU budget than it one was, and while slow, reform has happened. For this to continue to occur we need a strong UK presence in the European parliament; but what we got last week were a bunch of no show loadmouths like the awful shouty Boars on QT the other night.
The EU is a better place for having us within it, and we are a better place for being in it.
So in their current form they can't move anywhere unless they arrange in advance a new supply of tax serfs in the new location.
I am all in favour of balance Limp Pole, Use the money to improve and build the type of houses people need. Then pull down those big houses and build houses for the locals.
This will help reduce house price inflation for the poorer people, and at the same time increasing the value of the remaining "Manor Houses"?
A "win win" result as I am sure you will agree?
And no, by no measure is the UK a better place for being in the EU. Bad for trade, bad for democracy and bad for business. .
One of the silliest requirements of the planning authorities is to insist on restoring all the green houses of the late 19th century together with their mechanical venting fittings. When will EH realise that in the 21st century not even a billionaire grows his own grapes under glass in the Midlands?
Waitrose does that for all of us: a great leveller.
So Apethorpe Hall continues in state ownership, ten million sunk costs and no sale possible because of usage and development restrictions.
Preservation correctness gawn wrong, IMHO. Enough to turn me into a kipper.
Very gay, me old Weathercock.
Where are the women?
We may have a point of agreement? We could legalize cannabis growing, and use those greenhouses for the "herb" to be sold in state licensed outlets. The profit margins should be enough to cover the inefficiencies of the antiquated systems with money left over?
To be fair to Blair (not something you'll often hear me say) I don't see how this poor lady could even be considered an apostate, as she has never been a Muslim.
It reminds me of Alan Bennett referring to the closure of public libraries as "child abuse", though he may be more circumspect about using such language post Charlize Theron's remarks on rape.
The long gallery at Apethorpe Hall could indeed sleep a hundred fruit pickers. Although when an Approved School for Boys (1948-1982 - roughly) it was subdivided. If I remember the historical accounts correctly, this happened after some undesired fruit picking of which Alan Bennett would not approve.
http://join.ukip.org/JoinOnline.aspx?type=1
Where are the women?