In Denmark, on the other hand, wind is actually producing more than current consumption. Big "exports" to Norway and Sweden but also substantial imports from Germany.
'Sceptics' is a loaded word to be using at 6am.
You miss the point. Having a high percentage of generation by wind is meaningless if we still need conventional power stations for times when wind is generating next to nothing. It just adds massive costs on to consumers' bills. They are also much less efficient that promised, as they 'forgot' some rather obvious fundamentals. (1)
(It would be good if we could get figures, especially real-time, for generation from individual wind farms. Technically this should be very easy, as the figures will be known by both the generators and the grid)
Energy security is what matters, and wind has a place within that. But too much wind power can be problematic, as Germany is finding out. Until the peaks and troughs can be levelled out, by either pan-Europe grid or storage, then wind is an expensive mess.
The fundamental problem with wind power is government incentives that buy wind electricity at a non-market price. If you say that you will always buy wind at - say - 5p per MWh (I can't remember the exact number, and am just guessing), then people will keep building them. This means that at times of high winds the market for non-win generation completely disappears. You then end up having to subsidise non-wind power (through capacity payments) to stop people shutting traditional power stations...
That being said, as I've repeated approximately 1,000,000 times on here, there is little to no risk of brown-outs, black-outs, etc in the UK, even with all the coal and nuclear plants going off stream. We are simply going to have quite a lot of Open Cycle Gas Turbines (which have very low capital cost, but quite high running costs) installed.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
If Leave wins - I can't see how Remainers can do much of anything. The divorce has happened. If the Yessers in Scotland had won, what could the Noers practically do? Being awkward for a bit and then still losing.
Remain winning will cause much We Woz Robbed, then it'll fade back to the hard core Kippers/everyone else moving on. They at least have a chance to agitate for another go.
The vote will probably lance the boil within the Tory Party either way, unless it's a close Remain (which it might well be), in which case the BOOers will feel cheated.
I keep reading this. Why do you think the BOOers would feel cheated? Whether it's by one vote or 1 million votes, the result will be the result. Do you think those that want us to stay in will feel cheated if it's a close leave?
The Scottish referendum (which wasn't THAT close) shows what can happen - the losers did indeed feel cheated, and are voting accordingly. And yes, I think that people who are OK with membership will feel cheated if we pull out by a margin of 1%. There are always reasons to find - X promised Y and it didn't happen, Z made claim A and it's proved false.
But I'd like to put an alternative scenario. Most people are demonstrably not very interested at the moment, despite years of pretty intense debate. I think one could even make a case that most people are already bored by the referendum, and will get more so as the campaign finally starts. They will be bemused and mildly irritated as the whole political class starts obsessing about it.
For those of us who do care, the question is what those bored people will do. I think most will probably vote in the end, and will probably vote Remain, but that's just a gut feeling. Is there polling data on "certain to vote in the EU referendum"?
I agree.
I think DH is completely wrong (a rarity for him!) In believing that a result either way would "lance the boil" within the Tory party over Europe. That is no surgical lancet, that is a stake through the heart!
Supporters of all other UK parties from UKIP to Greens will make the most out of Tory contortions and deliberate self harm over the issue.
I am making the caveat that only a clear result either way will close down the issue; if it's close then it will continue as a problem within the Tory Party. But if one side can convincingly say to the other 'you've had your chance and you lost', then it really doesn't give them anywhere to go, particularly if it's Leave that wins.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I do regret the fact that in the unlikely event of Brexit I'll never be able to leave the UK again. Still I'm fortunate in that I live near Dover so I can stand atop the cliffs and stare longingly at the Continent. I'm due to go to Italy this year but I'm fearful of booking until the referendum is over, imagine paying for flights and then being told leaving the country is impossible.
As a matter of interest, do you believe that the UK should continue to allow visa free travel to the UK for citizens of the the EU and EFTA countries?
In Denmark, on the other hand, wind is actually producing more than current consumption. Big "exports" to Norway and Sweden but also substantial imports from Germany.
'Sceptics' is a loaded word to be using at 6am.
You miss the point. Having a high percentage of generation by wind is meaningless if we still need conventional power stations for times when wind is generating next to nothing. It just adds massive costs on to consumers' bills. They are also much less efficient that promised, as they 'forgot' some rather obvious fundamentals. (1)
(It would be good if we could get figures, especially real-time, for generation from individual wind farms. Technically this should be very easy, as the figures will be known by both the generators and the grid)
Energy security is what matters, and wind has a place within that. But too much wind power can be problematic, as Germany is finding out. Until the peaks and troughs can be levelled out, by either pan-Europe grid or storage, then wind is an expensive mess.
The fundamental problem with wind power is government incentives that buy wind electricity at a non-market price. If you say that you will always buy wind at - say - 5p per MWh (I can't remember the exact number, and am just guessing), then people will keep building them. This means that at times of high winds the market for non-win generation completely disappears. You then end up having to subsidise non-wind power (through capacity payments) to stop people shutting traditional power stations...
That being said, as I've repeated approximately 1,000,000 times on here, there is little to no risk of brown-outs, black-outs, etc in the UK, even with all the coal and nuclear plants going off stream. We are simply going to have quite a lot of Open Cycle Gas Turbines (which have very low capital cost, but quite high running costs) installed.
Your first paragraph outlines the problem much more lucidly then my post.
As for your last paragraph: I'm not sure that I've ever said there will be power shortages: just that the risk of them is too high. On that, I think we disagree.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
I was taken by your enthusiasm for the Tesla last night. It really does seem a decent motor, albeit still rather pricy. I would seriously consider one next time I am in the market. The current tax benefits for a company vehicle seem tasty too!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Even those without a valid licence or exemption...?
:knumb-skull:
* Sorry about earlier typos: After a carry-out can I drive the bus that you are on...?
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Solar is another that is dependent on cost effective storage. When we can do this in a meaningful way our whole energy market is going to look radically different.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I do regret the fact that in the unlikely event of Brexit I'll never be able to leave the UK again. Still I'm fortunate in that I live near Dover so I can stand atop the cliffs and stare longingly at the Continent. I'm due to go to Italy this year but I'm fearful of booking until the referendum is over, imagine paying for flights and then being told leaving the country is impossible.
As a matter of interest, do you believe that the UK should continue to allow visa free travel to the UK for citizens of the the EU and EFTA countries?
The whole debate is in danger in desecending into a farce, with Roger suggesting if we Leave he'll never see Venice again. I don't have any strong views on who should or shouldn't be given visas, I have very strong views about sending £millions a day to an undemocratic federalist bureaucracy that passes laws on our behalf.
This is about sovereignty not day trips to Calais ffs.
If Leave wins - I can't see how Remainers can do much of anything. The divorce has happened. If the Yessers in Scotland had won, what could the Noers practically do? Being awkward for a bit and then still losing.
Remain winning will cause much We Woz Robbed, then it'll fade back to the hard core Kippers/everyone else moving on. They at least have a chance to agitate for another go.
The vote will probably lance the boil within the Tory Party either way, unless it's a close Remain (which it might well be), in which case the BOOers will feel cheated.
I keep reading this. Why do you think the BOOers would feel cheated? Whether it's by one vote or 1 million votes, the result will be the result. Do you think those that want us to stay in will feel cheated if it's a close leave?
The Scottish referendum (which wasn't THAT close) shows what can happen - the losers did indeed feel cheated, and are voting accordingly. And yes, I think that people who are OK with membership will feel cheated if we pull out by a margin of 1%. There are always reasons to find - X promised Y and it didn't happen, Z made claim A and it's proved false.
But I'd like to put an alternative scenario. Most people are demonstrably not very interested at the moment, despite years of pretty intense debate. I think one could even make a case that most people are already bored by the referendum, and will get more so as the campaign finally starts. They will be bemused and mildly irritated as the whole political class starts obsessing about it.
For those of us who do care, the question is what those bored people will do. I think most will probably vote in the end, and will probably vote Remain, but that's just a gut feeling. Is there polling data on "certain to vote in the EU referendum"?
I agree.
I think DH is completely wrong (a rarity for him!) In believing that a result either way would "lance the boil" within the Tory party over Europe. That is no surgical lancet, that is a stake through the heart!
Supporters of all other UK parties from UKIP to Greens will make the most out of Tory contortions and deliberate self harm over the issue.
I am making the caveat that only a clear result either way will close down the issue; if it's close then it will continue as a problem within the Tory Party. But if one side can convincingly say to the other 'you've had your chance and you lost', then it really doesn't give them anywhere to go, particularly if it's Leave that wins.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
Eng 49-0 after the first hour. Looking comfortable for Cook and Hales so far.
That's the sort of comment I get into trouble for making. But so far SA's attack looks to be missing the menace that Steyn gives them. Good, honest and quick but not a lot of guile.
And lo, it comes to pass. Cook goes for 27, caught at 3rd slip. I missed it on TV but sounds like a low diving catch well taken. Eng 68-1 now.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Ultimately, we are too different to the rest of Europe: in our democratic system, in our legal system and in our history to be fully engaged in the European project. It would be better for us, and better for them if we left. And our exit would likely spur reform in the EU, and enable them to make the changes they need to prevent the Eurzone from collapsing.
For that reason, Out is the best option.
However, I find the utter hatred of the EU by some posters bizarre. I'm reminded of a discussion with my first boss at Goldman Sachs almost two decades ago. He had a "Sell" recommendation on a large European tech company, and I said something about the company being "crap". He said "like any large company, xxx, is a mixture of good bits and bad bits; bits that are in difficult markets, and bits that are in growing markets." And it really shaped my thinking: it's easy to say "xxx is crap", but the truth is that xxx is going to be a mixture of good and bad, run by people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
Changing the subject it seems a man has been killed by his dog in Preston, reports that, surprise surprise, it was a Pit Bull Terrier. Like many on here I'm a dog lover but surely something has to be done, I don't know the details of the Dangerous Dogs Act but it's clear that we are keeping as pets animals that kill us, utter madness.
Nice to see James Delignpole getting in a PBish mood
If I was elected your dictator for life, this is what I’d ban in 2016
I don't care about his point 2 (slimline tonic water) except where it applies to semi-skimmed milk. A few splashes of proper milk would ruin someone's health? Give me a break.
Also this one
Signs that begin: ‘For your comfort and convenience…’ before forbidding you from doing something that, actually, you’d find both comforting and convenient.
Doesn’t wanting to leave feed into ugly, anti-immigration feeling? “I think we’re past that now. The idea now that if you challenge anything to do with the numbers of people coming into this country you are racist is just nonsense. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.” The idea, she says, “that anybody in Ukip is a racist is just nonsense.” My eyes widen. Really? “Absolute nonsense. That’s the kind of Guardianista attitude to Ukip which has not done any good up in the northeast or northwest of England, where working-class people have been almost despised by … not everybody in the Guardian. And it’s an attitude that the BBC had as well – the idea that if you could possibly want to leave the EU, you must be some kind of monster.”
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Solar is another that is dependent on cost effective storage. When we can do this in a meaningful way our whole energy market is going to look radically different.
Solar corresponds quite well to peak usage (daytime, summer) in a lot of places, particularly in the US and in southern Europe. (I.e., places with lots of air conditioning.) This makes it inherently more useful than wind, which tends to blow most strongly at night.
Irrespective, if solar continues to come down at 23% per year, at some point everyone, everywhere will have solar panels on their house and office.
Eng 49-0 after the first hour. Looking comfortable for Cook and Hales so far.
That's the sort of comment I get into trouble for making. But so far SA's attack looks to be missing the menace that Steyn gives them. Good, honest and quick but not a lot of guile.
And lo, it comes to pass. Cook goes for 27, caught at 3rd slip. I missed it on TV but sounds like a low diving catch well taken. Eng 68-1 now.
It was a blinder. Cook had probably already given himself the 4 runs.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
The vote will probably lance the boil within the Tory Party either way, unless it's a close Remain (which it might well be), in which case the BOOers will feel cheated.
I keep reading this. Why do you think the BOOers would feel cheated? Whether it's by one vote or 1 million votes, the result will be the result. Do you think those that want us to stay in will feel cheated if it's a close leave?
The Scottish referendum (which wasn't THAT close) shows what can happen - the losers did indeed feel cheated, and are voting accordingly. And yes, I think that people who are OK with membership will feel cheated if we pull out by a margin of 1%. There are always reasons to find - X promised Y and it didn't happen, Z made claim A and it's proved false.
But I'd like to put an alternative scenario. Most people are demonstrably not very interested at the moment, despite years of pretty intense debate. I think one could even make a case that most people are already bored by the referendum, and will get more so as the campaign finally starts. They will be bemused and mildly irritated as the whole political class starts obsessing about it.
For those of us who do care, the question is what those bored people will do. I think most will probably vote in the end, and will probably vote Remain, but that's just a gut feeling. Is there polling data on "certain to vote in the EU referendum"?
There is a lot of rich data on certainty to vote in the recent Ashcroft poll of 20,000 people.
61% say there are certain to vote (8-10 on a 10 point scale).
But in the two LEAVE segments, 78% say they are certain to vote. In the three REMAIN segments, 70% say they are certain to vote. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 33% say they are certain to vote.
Using these weights, the result is 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 50.5/49.5 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Ashcroft also records whether the respondent voted in the 2015 GE. If you use this instead of the certainty to vote figure then the results are much the same.
64% voted in the 2015 GE.
But in the two LEAVE segments, 74% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the three REMAIN segments, 67% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 49% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
Using these weights, the result is again 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 49/51 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Bottom line - using certainty to vote weightings makes the result too close to call, much closer than I realised.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Ultimately, we are too different to the rest of Europe: in our democratic system, in our legal system and in our history to be fully engaged in the European project. It would be better for us, and better for them if we left. And our exit would likely spur reform in the EU, and enable them to make the changes they need to prevent the Eurzone from collapsing.
For that reason, Out is the best option.
However, I find the utter hatred of the EU by some posters bizarre. I'm reminded of a discussion with my first boss at Goldman Sachs almost two decades ago. He had a "Sell" recommendation on a large European tech company, and I said something about the company being "crap". He said "like any large company, xxx, is a mixture of good bits and bad bits; bits that are in difficult markets, and bits that are in growing markets." And it really shaped my thinking: it's easy to say "xxx is crap", but the truth is that xxx is going to be a mixture of good and bad, run by people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
We all need a little more nuance in our posts.
Call me paranoid but I've a feeling that's aimed at me. I don't have hatred for anything or anyone, life's too short, but I am strongly opposed to the EU as a governing body. Like many on here I've travelled quite extensively across Europe and I thoroughly enjoy experiencing the different ways of life. The same applies to US, but I don't want Washington passing laws on my behalf.
It really isn't a nuanced stance, it's very straightforward.
When I defected from MCL to BT in the mid 90s - I actually lost friends. It was considered the most appalling betrayal. How could you join Bad BT?!??!
Going from largely unregulated to very regulated was a culture shock - and I kept trying to explain the different places both organisations came from to little avail.
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Ultimately, we are too different to the rest of Europe: in our democratic system, in our legal system and in our history to be fully engaged in the European project. It would be better for us, and better for them if we left. And our exit would likely spur reform in the EU, and enable them to make the changes they need to prevent the Eurzone from collapsing.
For that reason, Out is the best option.
However, I find the utter hatred of the EU by some posters bizarre. I'm reminded of a discussion with my first boss at Goldman Sachs almost two decades ago. He had a "Sell" recommendation on a large European tech company, and I said something about the company being "crap". He said "like any large company, xxx, is a mixture of good bits and bad bits; bits that are in difficult markets, and bits that are in growing markets." And it really shaped my thinking: it's easy to say "xxx is crap", but the truth is that xxx is going to be a mixture of good and bad, run by people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
This body you wish to create, we could call it the European Union.
Roger's comment on Vienna reminds me of a long gone documentary on the city which ended with a metaphor based on the architecture of the Ringstrasse caryatids which aped the past glories of Classical and Renaissance Europe but were ultimately pompous, sham and (actually) hollow.
Appears you must specify the "www" protocol (which Mozilla assumes is set). Apparently the Septics have identified the 'august' broadcaster as an ISIS sympathiser...!
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
This body you wish to create, we could call it the European Union.
That makes no sense. Parliament can create a cross-party body that gives annual reports, and Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan can be members, as well as a bunch of constitutional lawyers and the like. It can then go through every year - on a decision by decision basis - and comment on whether they fall under the competences granted under existing treaties.
Call me paranoid but I've a feeling that's aimed at me. I don't have hatred for anything or anyone, life's too short, but I am strongly opposed to the EU as a governing body. Like many on here I've travelled quite extensively across Europe and I thoroughly enjoy experiencing the different ways of life. The same applies to US, but I don't want Washington passing laws on my behalf.
It really isn't a nuanced stance, it's very straightforward.
It is not aimed solely at you. And partly it's frustration: I believe that if Leave comes over as hysterical, we will be ignored and ridiculed.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Whether it is wishful thinking or not, it is entirely possible for parliament to set up a body like that.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
This body you wish to create, we could call it the European Union.
That makes no sense. Parliament can create a cross-party body that gives annual reports, and Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan can be members, as well as a bunch of constitutional lawyers and the like. It can then go through every year - on a decision by decision basis - and comment on whether they fall under the competences granted under existing treaties.
It's just another layer of bureaucracy, Douglas and Dan wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
I appreciate its not what some people want but the vote will be whether we leave or stay, it's nowhere near as complicated as some people are pretending.
Look, if we leave the world won't stop turning, people will buy things from us and allow us to travel there and vice versa. If we're lucky our clubs will still be able to enter the Champions League.
Yes, that was deliberately patronising, it's as ridiculous as the garbage scare stories I read on here.
"And that’s what will be at the heart of the referendum: who will be believed most? Claim and counter-claim will be rife, with both sides making exaggerated claims about the costs should the other side win".
........Having just returned from Venice I wondered how anyone could fail to be excited that such a magical city is now part of our extended family of nations. Europe is such a wonderful eclectic place that we should embrace it as tightly as we can. It's future should be our future.
For the debate to be reduced to nickels and dimes is very depressing. We're such philistines
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Absolutely. I am sure the Norwegians would be very upset to be told they were not part of pan-european culture.
Roger's comment on Vienna reminds me of a long gone documentary on the city which ended with a metaphor based on the architecture of the Ringstrasse caryatids which aped the past glories of Classical and Renaissance Europe but were ultimately pompous, sham and (actually) hollow.
Call me paranoid but I've a feeling that's aimed at me. I don't have hatred for anything or anyone, life's too short, but I am strongly opposed to the EU as a governing body. Like many on here I've travelled quite extensively across Europe and I thoroughly enjoy experiencing the different ways of life. The same applies to US, but I don't want Washington passing laws on my behalf.
It really isn't a nuanced stance, it's very straightforward.
It is not aimed solely at you. And partly it's frustration: I believe that if Leave comes over as hysterical, we will be ignored and ridiculed.
Hang on, are you accusing me of being hysterical? It's not me suggesting people won't be allowed to visit Venice.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Whether it is wishful thinking or not, it is entirely possible for parliament to set up a body like that.
Appears you must specify the "www" protocol (which Mozilla assumes is set). Apparently the Septics have identified the 'august' broadcaster as an ISIS sympathiser...!
I am not hung up on the sovereignty argument within the EU. It seems to me that any common market inevitably involves compromises on sovereignty which is why it was well established that EEC law was superior to domestic law in respect of market access even before we joined.
I also take Robert's point that attacking arrogant EU bureaucrats for looking down their noses at us is, at the least, somewhat lacking in nuance. It is equally silly to believe that European politics is some sort of conspiracy to do the UK down or that all of our politics should be framed by what we can get out of the EU rather than what we can put in.
My concerns about the EU are not so much that it is an all powerful superstate but that it has many of the features of a failed state. It finds making decisions incredibly difficult mainly because only a very few fanatics have any real concept of an EU polity. It defers decisions rather than makes them and when it does they are patched together to be sold to a series of disparate polities in their respective countries.
These problems are particularly acute for the EZ which really needs to have a much better and more effective grip on fiscal policy inside the members; much more substantial Transfers and much more focus on creating a common economy that can survive a single interest rate. The crisis of the EZ has been driven by the absence of the powers that are needed not by too many of them.
If the EZ starts putting these powers into place, as they must, the inevitable consequence is that they will start to vote as a bloc within the EU as a whole because they will have decided what they want. If that happens under the current structure we will have increasingly little say in how things develop and we will be better out. It is possible Cameron will come back from his negotiations with a solution to this. If he does then the arguments for in and out will be finely balanced but it is difficult to see a solution that does not give the UK veto powers that the EZ group can live with.
Most people don't wake up everyday and think about this pseudo nonsense, they're too busy earning a crust, sorting the kids out and paying the bills to even consider culture. To most people in the UK being cultural means having a Thai Green Curry.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
This body you wish to create, we could call it the European Union.
That makes no sense. Parliament can create a cross-party body that gives annual reports, and Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan can be members, as well as a bunch of constitutional lawyers and the like. It can then go through every year - on a decision by decision basis - and comment on whether they fall under the competences granted under existing treaties.
Boiling Frog syndrome.
If we are in the EU we have to abide by the rulings of the ECJ and the Directives from the EU. I do not for one minute think the EU leaders are dumb and so if it is clear there is a potential for triggering another referendum then they will make sure they don't pull that trigger. This means that, just as it has been for the last 40 years, the decisions that draw us ever closer into the EU will be gradual and couched in terms that even appear to give us more freedom (think of the idiocy of subsidiarity).
There is no way that any committee no matter how Eurosceptic it might be (and it won't be of course) is going to call for a new referendum just because of a small change in the terms. They would be a laughing stock. And yet 10 years down the line you will find that those small changes add up to a large change in our relationship with the EU without at any time having given us - or rather the committee - sufficient cause to do anything more than moan a bit.
This is not just speculation. It is how the EU has proceeded for decades and it will not change just because of some oversight committee at Westminster.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
This body you wish to create, we could call it the European Union.
That makes no sense. Parliament can create a cross-party body that gives annual reports, and Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan can be members, as well as a bunch of constitutional lawyers and the like. It can then go through every year - on a decision by decision basis - and comment on whether they fall under the competences granted under existing treaties.
Boiling Frog syndrome.
If we are in the EU we have to abide by the rulings of the ECJ and the Directives from the EU. I do not for one minute think the EU leaders are dumb and so if it is clear there is a potential for triggering another referendum then they will make sure they don't pull that trigger. This means that, just as it has been for the last 40 years, the decisions that draw us ever closer into the EU will be gradual and couched in terms that even appear to give us more freedom (think of the idiocy of subsidiarity).
There is no way that any committee no matter how Eurosceptic it might be (and it won't be of course) is going to call for a new referendum just because of a small change in the terms. They would be a laughing stock. And yet 10 years down the line you will find that those small changes add up to a large change in our relationship with the EU without at any time having given us - or rather the committee - sufficient cause to do anything more than moan a bit.
This is not just speculation. It is how the EU has proceeded for decades and it will not change just because of some oversight committee at Westminster.
It's not how it's proceeded, though of course that's not to say there hasn't been a centralising tendency from the Court, never mind the Commission.
The reality is that there is only so much that the existing treaties can do - though as it stands, that's a lot. That was why the SEA, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, Amsterdam and the rest were needed: because to progress 'down the road', new treaties *were* required. To take one example, Britain cannot be forced into the Euro against its will. No decision of the Court, Commission, Parliament or whoever can change that.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
That's true, but there is also child safety to think about - some people will avoid living on a main road so they can leave the door unlocked knowing that their kid isn't going to be hit at 70mph within seconds of learning to open a handle.
Most people don't wake up everyday and think about this pseudo nonsense, they're too busy earning a crust, sorting the kids out and paying the bills to even consider culture. To most people in the UK being cultural means having a Thai Green Curry.
It's not pseudo nonsense though, is it? For that matter, what exactly is "pseudo nonsense"? There is a relatively easily definable European culture, based on the Christian and wider historical inheritance, combined with social democracy.
It's true that most people don't think about it much. That's beside the point: they know it when they see it and they know something else when they see that.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
Most people don't wake up everyday and think about this pseudo nonsense, they're too busy earning a crust, sorting the kids out and paying the bills to even consider culture. To most people in the UK being cultural means having a Thai Green Curry.
It's not pseudo nonsense though, is it? For that matter, what exactly is "pseudo nonsense"? There is a relatively easily definable European culture, based on the Christian and wider historical inheritance, combined with social democracy.
It's true that most people don't think about it much. That's beside the point: they know it when they see it and they know something else when they see that.
That is pretty much meaningless drivel though David. One could - probably with more accuracy - say there is an easily definable Anglo Saxon culture based on Protestant Christian values, wider historical inheritance, a common language, common law and democracy. I think your European definition papers over the differences too easily.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
That's true, but there is also child safety to think about - some people will avoid living on a main road so they can leave the door unlocked knowing that their kid isn't going to be hit at 70mph within seconds of learning to open a handle.
Yes, but it's all about cost. I used to rent a place in Park Square East. We had an opportunity to buy it - but it was just too noisy (being 10 yards from Euston Road). If the noise factor was reduced, it would have been worth 40% more.
It's not how it's proceeded, though of course that's not to say there hasn't been a centralising tendency from the Court, never mind the Commission.
The reality is that there is only so much that the existing treaties can do - though as it stands, that's a lot. That was why the SEA, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, Amsterdam and the rest were needed: because to progress 'down the road', new treaties *were* required. To take one example, Britain cannot be forced into the Euro against its will. No decision of the Court, Commission, Parliament or whoever can change that.
Logical fallacy. Just picking one of the most extreme examples of EU integration and showing that it cannot be forced upon us does not negate the fact that many other integrationist moves can and are being forced upon us without treaty change.
On topic, the EU's modus operandi is just to let the Eurocrats get on with what they need to do to implement The Project, a vision of a handful of European leaders for a single country to rival the US. And if any single element votes to do something awkward, like refuse to ratify a treaty, they just throw money at them to remind them the EU is an instrument of largesse - then tell them to vote again.
I suspect they would treat a vote for Brexit as the opening salvoes in a renegotiation. The current effort will be seen as no more than Cameron dropping his trousers and mooning them.
It would be politically impossible to force a second vote, if Leave won.
The people of the UK may well not like the EU exit terms, particularly if wanting to stay in the EEA, but the deed would be done.
But who would be negotiating the Leave terms ?
Nigel Farage ? Douglas Carswell ? Bill Cash ? Richard Tyndall ?
No, the people doing the negotiating would be the same politicians and bureaucrats who want to remain in the EU.
So the negotiations would be dragged out or perhaps sabotaged so that leaving the EU looked dangerous.
Then it would be announced that a second referendum would be needed to 'confirm' the negotiations.
Alternatively the leave negotiations would result in a 'Leave In Name Only' treaty with all the fundamentals of EU membership remaining the same.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
That's true, but there is also child safety to think about - some people will avoid living on a main road so they can leave the door unlocked knowing that their kid isn't going to be hit at 70mph within seconds of learning to open a handle.
Yes, but it's all about cost. I used to rent a place in Park Square East. We had an opportunity to buy it - but it was just too noisy (being 10 yards from Euston Road). If the noise factor was reduced, it would have been worth 40% more.
An interesting idea would be to simulate the effect by working out the noise levels for 50% electric traffic, 75% etc. Then use noise cancellation technology to create the same effect temporarily (no, living with noise cancellation isn't a good idea)... Do that for potential investors - "this is how it will sound in 20 years time"....
Too much focus on the negatives in the header - I don't see any way at all in which the Greek crisis will affect the vote, for the simple reason that Leave-leaners seem unlikely to me to have much sympathy with Syriza and the Greeks. Maybe a couple of ideologues in the New Statesman will moan about why they are reluctant Remainers but even they will be well aware that the UK would be more like the Conservative Party and less like their party outside the EU - As long as refugees aren't wandering around Swindon or Basildon, low-information Conservative-leaning voters won't be afraid of them, it might influence people who already go out and consider Ukip, but those votes are stacked in the Leave column anyway - Obviously if you believe everything has been getting more negative since the Fall of the Roman Empire (the consensus on here at times) then you will sympathise with Leave, but 2016 and 17 might be different with low unemployment and inflation and a stable government in the UK that is united on domestic policy, there might be less negativity about - The EU would lose from holding out on the UK followed by Leave but they would gain hugely from holding out on the UK followed by Remain, which is a higher-probability outcome; it would raise their reputation as negotiators and perhaps push the EU as a whole in the direction of the centre-right compromise that Merkel wants
Culture? Isn't that the ministry-of-sound the funnels billions into shyte just to please Wodger?
We have no "culture": We have social and economic norms. Like pishing of to the pub when the freckin bolier stops boiling 'wahtah'! I'd rather be a drunken, failed intellect than a parasite discussing a culture that has no historical, genetic nor political connection with my reality....
Culture? Isn't that the ministry-of-sound the funnels billions into shyte just to please Wodger?
We have no "culture": We have social and economic norms. Like pishing of to the pub when the freckin bolier stops boiling 'wahtah'! I'd rather be a drunken, failed intellect than a parasite discussing a culture that has no historical, genetic nor political connection with my reality....
The vote will probably lance the boil within the Tory Party either way, unless it's a close Remain (which it might well be), in which case the BOOers will feel cheated.
I keep reading this. Why do you think the BOOers would feel cheated? Whether it's by one vote or 1 million votes, the result will be the result. Do you think those that want us to stay in will feel cheated if it's a close leave?
...
For those of us who do care, the question is what those bored people will do. I think most will probably vote in the end, and will probably vote Remain, but that's just a gut feeling. Is there polling data on "certain to vote in the EU referendum"?
There is a lot of rich data on certainty to vote in the recent Ashcroft poll of 20,000 people.
61% say there are certain to vote (8-10 on a 10 point scale).
But in the two LEAVE segments, 78% say they are certain to vote. In the three REMAIN segments, 70% say they are certain to vote. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 33% say they are certain to vote.
Using these weights, the result is 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 50.5/49.5 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Ashcroft also records whether the respondent voted in the 2015 GE. If you use this instead of the certainty to vote figure then the results are much the same.
64% voted in the 2015 GE.
But in the two LEAVE segments, 74% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the three REMAIN segments, 67% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 49% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
Using these weights, the result is again 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 49/51 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Bottom line - using certainty to vote weightings makes the result too close to call, much closer than I realised.
Very full and helpful response, thank you - worth a separate thread IMO.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
The vote will probably lance the boil within the Tory Party either way, unless it's a close Remain (which it might well be), in which case the BOOers will feel cheated.
I keep reading this. Wh
I think one could even make a case that most people are already bored by the referendum, and will get more so as the campaign finally starts. They will be bemused and mildly irritated as the whole political class starts obsessing about it.
For those of us who do care, the question is what those bored people will do. I think most will probably vote in the end, and will probably vote Remain, but that's just a gut feeling. Is there polling data on "certain to vote in the EU referendum"?
There is a lot of rich data on certainty to vote in the recent Ashcroft poll of 20,000 people.
61% say there are certain to vote (8-10 on a 10 point scale).
But in the two LEAVE segments, 78% say they are certain to vote. In the three REMAIN segments, 70% say they are certain to vote. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 33% say they are certain to vote.
Using these weights, the result is 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 50.5/49.5 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Ashcroft also records whether the respondent voted in the 2015 GE. If you use this instead of the certainty to vote figure then the results are much the same.
64% voted in the 2015 GE.
But in the two LEAVE segments, 74% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the three REMAIN segments, 67% say they voted in the 2015 GE. In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 49% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
Using these weights, the result is again 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN, then the result is 49/51 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Bottom line - using certainty to vote weightings makes the result too close to call, much closer than I realised.
I think the last figure is most likely if Cameron leads In, which he will almost certainly do after the negotiations have been concluded having claimed whatever he can get from them, in such circumstances a 51% In 49% Out result is very plausible. A large In result in Scotland would help Remain over the line with England split 50-50 and probably voting Out if you exclude London from the figures
I still think a referendum will wait until 2017 though rather than be held this year
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
That's true, but there is also child safety to think about - some people will avoid living on a main road so they can leave the door unlocked knowing that their kid isn't going to be hit at 70mph within seconds of learning to open a handle.
The question is whether electric cars will be as quiet as the current ones are. There has been talk of the danger to pedestrians and others to near-silent cars. To the extent that there is research to the sort of noise they should broadcast, and when.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
Jeez you are right. 5 books in 20 years. "A Dream of Spring" the book after this delayed one is already commissioned, but you have to wonder if it will ever be written.
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
Jeez you are right. 5 books in 20 years.
The first 3 were out rather quickly, as I recall. Then he got really successful, then had to grapple with some plot elements that were tricky to solve but is at the same time so successful there's no rush. A shame. He has a lot of imitators who are much worse who fill the gap.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
In theory perhaps, but the intention to move beyond the status quo is no hidden, so any acceptance of the status quo now will be taken as general acceptance of the stated aims of the status quo (eg more integration).
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
The show is already beyond the books in some respects, and will clearly conclude well before them.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
No it isn't. The system as it is in place and operating now allows for continual changes and closer union through new Directives or through ECJ decisions reinterpreting existing legislation in favour of ever closer union. A Remain vote is a vote for continuing closer union and a seeping away of control to the EU.
The key to wind power being more than an expulsive indulgence is efficient and large scale battery storage. Once it does not matter when the win blows it becomes useful. As efficient batteries are also the key to electric cars it does occur to me that whoever makes the best breakthroughs here is going to make serious money and be an excellent investment. Any suggestions as to the most likely?
What a catch!
I have a chart that looks at the changing price of solar and batteries per year, and IIRC the price per watt/hour of batteries is declining at 21% per year, while solar panels are reducing at 23% per year.
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Another black swan to think about - property next to main roads.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
That's true, but there is also child safety to think about - some people will avoid living on a main road so they can leave the door unlocked knowing that their kid isn't going to be hit at 70mph within seconds of learning to open a handle.
The question is whether electric cars will be as quiet as the current ones are. There has been talk of the danger to pedestrians and others to near-silent cars. To the extent that there is research to the sort of noise they should broadcast, and when.
It's easy to envisage road injuries and deaths increasing as usage of electric vehicles increases. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Having invented a quiet form of transport they now want to artificially make it noisy! Madness. Vehicles will still have to have an audible warning instrument to be used by the driver when needed and pedestrians will have to look both ways before crossing a road no more is needed.
Its better the devil you know than the one you don't know. being out of Europe is not a panacea.. We would be loathed by our European allies for a very long time... and NOT necessarily better off. Dave's given it to Europe between the eyes, I am confident Dave will be able to offer some radical changes. Perhaps offering the referendum and forcing Europe to realise that the UK might leave has concentrated minds.. After all, if the UK leave, what's to stop another country leaving... If Dave gets a good deal, IN will win with something to spare.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is being a member of an organisation that is driven by ever closer union...
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Good day Hurst, I do like Glenlivet. Sacrilege for me to be drinking whiskey, I would just have a grouse. Though I do enjoy an odd Jack Daniel.
Most people don't wake up everyday and think about this pseudo nonsense, they're too busy earning a crust, sorting the kids out and paying the bills to even consider culture. To most people in the UK being cultural means having a Thai Green Curry.
It's not pseudo nonsense though, is it? For that matter, what exactly is "pseudo nonsense"? There is a relatively easily definable European culture, based on the Christian and wider historical inheritance, combined with social democracy.
It's true that most people don't think about it much. That's beside the point: they know it when they see it and they know something else when they see that.
People from Puglia have little in common with those from Norway, likewise Slovenia and Anglesey. That doesn't mean they can't live in peace and respect one and other but there is no such thing as pan-Euopean culture in the same way there is no such thing as global culture.
It's nothing more than artificial froth, people get along just fine until politicians meddle in their lives.
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
The show is already beyond the books in some respects, and will clearly conclude well before them.
I understand that, but I believe HBO came to an agreement to delay the new season of Game of Thrones to much later in the year to allow the book to be published first in the spring. So they have shifted lots of things around for nothing.
Completely off topic, but some good photos of the hotel that caught fire the other night. http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures#1 Looks like quite extensive damage to a number of rooms on one side of the residences, probably a dozen floors will need completely gutting and refitting. The hotel rooms on the levels below the terrace that was the seat of the fire look pretty much undamaged from the outside, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of smoke and water damage inside.
An interesting point on the design of the building, the mechanical/service floors are right at the bottom and right at the top, both areas that look pretty much unscathed.
Unlike the previous couple of fires here, this building is owned and operated by a single company (Emaar, a local constructor operated under The Address brand). It will be insured and the high profile nature of the location and the fire itself will see that once the forensics guys have finished on site it will very quickly be covered in scaffolding and tarpaulin so that remedial work can begin.
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
Its better the devil you know than the one you don't know. being out of Europe is not a panacea.. We would be loathed by our European allies for a very long time... and NOT necessarily better off. Dave's given it to Europe between the eyes, I am confident Dave will be able to offer some radical changes. Perhaps offering the referendum and forcing Europe to realise that the UK might leave has concentrated minds.. After all, if the UK leave, what's to stop another country leaving... If Dave gets a good deal, IN will win with something to spare.
Completely off topic, but some good photos of the hotel that caught fire the other night. http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures#1 Looks like quite extensive damage to a number of rooms on one side of the residences , probably a dozen floors will need completely gutting and refitting. The hotel rooms on the levels below the terrace that was the seat of the fire look pretty much undamaged from the outside, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of smoke and water damage inside.
An interesting point on the design of the building, the mechanical/service floors are right at the bottom and right at the top, both areas that look pretty much unscathed.
Unlike the previous couple of fires here, this building is owned and operated by a single company (Eamaar, a local constructor under The Address brand). It will be insured and the high profile nature of the location and the fire itself will see that once the forensics guys have finished on site it will very quickly be covered in scaffolding and tarpaulin so that remedial work can begin.
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and fire service have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable. One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured.
Another question seems to be why did the fire alarm system not detect the fire at an early stage. Eye witness were reporting the fire was well developed before it went off.
I guess the timing was very lucky. On another night, later in the night, when most people would have been in bed, could have been far worse. Instead, everybody was up and about getting ready to celebrate midnight.
Appears you must specify the "www" protocol (which Mozilla assumes is set). Apparently the Septics have identified the 'august' broadcaster as an ISIS sympathiser...!
Bloody script kiddies....misfiring their low orbit ion cannon....
It is very worrying. Maybe we should all buy shares in CDNs whose anti-DDoS services basically amount to throwing bandwidth at the problem.
If we (or ministers) are not worried about important public services being knocked offline, or people's houses now we can turn on the central heating from the car park of the Dog and Duck, perhaps they should think forward a year or two to when the medical internet of things becomes more established and script kiddies and terrorists alike can block the servers to which medical devices report minute-by-minute findings.
Appears you must specify the "www" protocol (which Mozilla assumes is set). Apparently the Septics have identified the 'august' broadcaster as an ISIS sympathiser...!
Bloody script kiddies....misfiring their low orbit ion cannon....
It is very worrying. Maybe we should all buy shares in CDNs whose anti-DDoS services basically amount to throwing bandwidth at the problem.
If we (or ministers) are not worried about important public services being knocked offline, or people's houses now we can turn on the central heating from the car park of the Dog and Duck, perhaps they should think forward a year or two to when the medical internet of things becomes more established and script kiddies and terrorists alike can block the servers to which medical devices report minute-by-minute findings.
I think it is a genuine serious concern and one that I am not sure all those pushing the "internet of things" are sufficiently tackling. The likes of DDos attacks can be run with virtually no technical expertise.
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
The show is already beyond the books in some respects, and will clearly conclude well before them.
I understand that, but I believe HBO came to an agreement to delay the new season of Game of Thrones to much later in the year to allow the book to be published first in the spring. So they have shifted lots of things around for nothing.
Ah yes - I had forgotten. They should have seen that coming, quite frankly.
Excellent thread as always btw. My natural pessimism prevents me from agreeing with your conclusion, but needless to say I'll be delighted if you're right.
Having invented a quiet form of transport they now want to artificially make it noisy! Madness. Vehicles will still have to have an audible warning instrument to be used by the driver when needed and pedestrians will have to look both ways before crossing a road no more is needed.
I believe this was based on a number of incidents already having happened. I don't think there is anything daft about adding an artificial noise. After all we use noise as part of our early warning system about approaching traffic.
Nor do I think it will necessarily cause much more grief for people. It is interesting that whilst engine noise is important around town and obviously is also annoying when cars are accelerating away from lights or up a hill, analysis has shown that most of the noise that disturbs people who live close to motorways etc is not caused by engine noise but by the wheel noise. People think it is engine noise but the noise of the tyre on the road surface is a major component.
Comments
What a catch!
Should those price declines - which have been constant for 30-odd years - continue for another decade, then solar will be the dominant energy technology a decade from now, and we'll all be driving electric cars.
Remain winning will cause much We Woz Robbed, then it'll fade back to the hard core Kippers/everyone else moving on. They at least have a chance to agitate for another go.
As for your last paragraph: I'm not sure that I've ever said there will be power shortages: just that the risk of them is too high. On that, I think we disagree.
:knumb-skull:
* Sorry about earlier typos: After a carry-out can I drive the bus that you are on...?
This is about sovereignty not day trips to Calais ffs.
For that reason, Out is the best option.
However, I find the utter hatred of the EU by some posters bizarre. I'm reminded of a discussion with my first boss at Goldman Sachs almost two decades ago. He had a "Sell" recommendation on a large European tech company, and I said something about the company being "crap". He said "like any large company, xxx, is a mixture of good bits and bad bits; bits that are in difficult markets, and bits that are in growing markets." And it really shaped my thinking: it's easy to say "xxx is crap", but the truth is that xxx is going to be a mixture of good and bad, run by people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
We all need a little more nuance in our posts.
Irrespective, if solar continues to come down at 23% per year, at some point everyone, everywhere will have solar panels on their house and office.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Europe-poll-tables-by-segment-Dec-15.pdf
61% say there are certain to vote (8-10 on a 10 point scale).
But in the two LEAVE segments, 78% say they are certain to vote.
In the three REMAIN segments, 70% say they are certain to vote.
In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 33% say they are certain to vote.
Using these weights, the result is 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN,
then the result is 50.5/49.5 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Ashcroft also records whether the respondent voted in the 2015 GE. If you use this instead of the certainty to vote figure then the results are much the same.
64% voted in the 2015 GE.
But in the two LEAVE segments, 74% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
In the three REMAIN segments, 67% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
In the two UNDECIDED segments, only 49% say they voted in the 2015 GE.
Using these weights, the result is again 54/46 LEAVE to REMAIN.
If the "Listen to DC" segment move from 50% REMAIN to 90% REMAIN,
then the result is 49/51 LEAVE to REMAIN.
Bottom line - using certainty to vote weightings makes the result too close to call, much closer than I realised.
I don't personally find that argument convincing, but it is refreshing to see someone arguing to Remain in a slightly poetic, romantic way, as I cannot imagine many such arguments being made during the hell that will be this campaign. Even the philistine bit I find less offensive that the sneering contempt of the EU bureaucrats and supporting heads of government, who then have to pretend that they are not being contemptuous.
I think that roger is correct in one thing. The English relationship with Europe has long been dominated by money rather than more high falutin values. It is a several hundred year tradition.
I share with roger the joy of pan european culture, and am proud of the part we have played in joining the former soviet sattelites firmly into the European mainstream.
I'm fine with the joy of pan-european culture - I just think that can happen outside the bounds of the EU, which I would prefer just handles the money and diplomatic side of things rather than some all encompassing future state.
Ultimately, we are too different to the rest of Europe: in our democratic system, in our legal system and in our history to be fully engaged in the European project. It would be better for us, and better for them if we left. And our exit would likely spur reform in the EU, and enable them to make the changes they need to prevent the Eurzone from collapsing.
For that reason, Out is the best option.
However, I find the utter hatred of the EU by some posters bizarre. I'm reminded of a discussion with my first boss at Goldman Sachs almost two decades ago. He had a "Sell" recommendation on a large European tech company, and I said something about the company being "crap". He said "like any large company, xxx, is a mixture of good bits and bad bits; bits that are in difficult markets, and bits that are in growing markets." And it really shaped my thinking: it's easy to say "xxx is crap", but the truth is that xxx is going to be a mixture of good and bad, run by people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
We all need a little more nuance in our posts.
Call me paranoid but I've a feeling that's aimed at me. I don't have hatred for anything or anyone, life's too short, but I am strongly opposed to the EU as a governing body. Like many on here I've travelled quite extensively across Europe and I thoroughly enjoy experiencing the different ways of life. The same applies to US, but I don't want Washington passing laws on my behalf.
It really isn't a nuanced stance, it's very straightforward.
Going from largely unregulated to very regulated was a culture shock - and I kept trying to explain the different places both organisations came from to little avail.
Appears you must specify the "www" protocol (which Mozilla assumes is set). Apparently the Septics have identified the 'august' broadcaster as an ISIS sympathiser...!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35213415
Ordnance Survey
3 ways to explore Britain from your armchair https://t.co/Nxo5FZrbA9 #Minecraft #VirtualReality #ColouringIn https://t.co/OSk6TXabIk
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
I appreciate its not what some people want but the vote will be whether we leave or stay, it's nowhere near as complicated as some people are pretending.
Look, if we leave the world won't stop turning, people will buy things from us and allow us to travel there and vice versa. If we're lucky our clubs will still be able to enter the Champions League.
Yes, that was deliberately patronising, it's as ridiculous as the garbage scare stories I read on here.
Get a grip ffs
I also take Robert's point that attacking arrogant EU bureaucrats for looking down their noses at us is, at the least, somewhat lacking in nuance. It is equally silly to believe that European politics is some sort of conspiracy to do the UK down or that all of our politics should be framed by what we can get out of the EU rather than what we can put in.
My concerns about the EU are not so much that it is an all powerful superstate but that it has many of the features of a failed state. It finds making decisions incredibly difficult mainly because only a very few fanatics have any real concept of an EU polity. It defers decisions rather than makes them and when it does they are patched together to be sold to a series of disparate polities in their respective countries.
These problems are particularly acute for the EZ which really needs to have a much better and more effective grip on fiscal policy inside the members; much more substantial Transfers and much more focus on creating a common economy that can survive a single interest rate. The crisis of the EZ has been driven by the absence of the powers that are needed not by too many of them.
If the EZ starts putting these powers into place, as they must, the inevitable consequence is that they will start to vote as a bloc within the EU as a whole because they will have decided what they want. If that happens under the current structure we will have increasingly little say in how things develop and we will be better out. It is possible Cameron will come back from his negotiations with a solution to this. If he does then the arguments for in and out will be finely balanced but it is difficult to see a solution that does not give the UK veto powers that the EZ group can live with.
Most people don't wake up everyday and think about this pseudo nonsense, they're too busy earning a crust, sorting the kids out and paying the bills to even consider culture. To most people in the UK being cultural means having a Thai Green Curry.
If we are in the EU we have to abide by the rulings of the ECJ and the Directives from the EU. I do not for one minute think the EU leaders are dumb and so if it is clear there is a potential for triggering another referendum then they will make sure they don't pull that trigger. This means that, just as it has been for the last 40 years, the decisions that draw us ever closer into the EU will be gradual and couched in terms that even appear to give us more freedom (think of the idiocy of subsidiarity).
There is no way that any committee no matter how Eurosceptic it might be (and it won't be of course) is going to call for a new referendum just because of a small change in the terms. They would be a laughing stock. And yet 10 years down the line you will find that those small changes add up to a large change in our relationship with the EU without at any time having given us - or rather the committee - sufficient cause to do anything more than moan a bit.
This is not just speculation. It is how the EU has proceeded for decades and it will not change just because of some oversight committee at Westminster.
If I happen upon a foreigner I can assure you I'll cross the road, you know, just in case.
The reality is that there is only so much that the existing treaties can do - though as it stands, that's a lot. That was why the SEA, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, Amsterdam and the rest were needed: because to progress 'down the road', new treaties *were* required. To take one example, Britain cannot be forced into the Euro against its will. No decision of the Court, Commission, Parliament or whoever can change that.
At the moment such property is the bottom end of the market. Noisy and filthy. Often subdivided and rented on a per room basis at a cheap rate.
In a electric car world, noise drops by several orders of magnitude. As for pollution (local) - well, electric cars still need alot of air for battery and engine cooling. Which they filter so that grime doesn't much up the inside. Yes, electric cars and quite a few hybrids go round hovering up the gunk in the air......
It's true that most people don't think about it much. That's beside the point: they know it when they see it and they know something else when they see that.
Nigel Farage ? Douglas Carswell ? Bill Cash ? Richard Tyndall ?
No, the people doing the negotiating would be the same politicians and bureaucrats who want to remain in the EU.
So the negotiations would be dragged out or perhaps sabotaged so that leaving the EU looked dangerous.
Then it would be announced that a second referendum would be needed to 'confirm' the negotiations.
Alternatively the leave negotiations would result in a 'Leave In Name Only' treaty with all the fundamentals of EU membership remaining the same.
- I don't see any way at all in which the Greek crisis will affect the vote, for the simple reason that Leave-leaners seem unlikely to me to have much sympathy with Syriza and the Greeks. Maybe a couple of ideologues in the New Statesman will moan about why they are reluctant Remainers but even they will be well aware that the UK would be more like the Conservative Party and less like their party outside the EU
- As long as refugees aren't wandering around Swindon or Basildon, low-information Conservative-leaning voters won't be afraid of them, it might influence people who already go out and consider Ukip, but those votes are stacked in the Leave column anyway
- Obviously if you believe everything has been getting more negative since the Fall of the Roman Empire (the consensus on here at times) then you will sympathise with Leave, but 2016 and 17 might be different with low unemployment and inflation and a stable government in the UK that is united on domestic policy, there might be less negativity about
- The EU would lose from holding out on the UK followed by Leave but they would gain hugely from holding out on the UK followed by Remain, which is a higher-probability outcome; it would raise their reputation as negotiators and perhaps push the EU as a whole in the direction of the centre-right compromise that Merkel wants
We have no "culture": We have social and economic norms. Like pishing of to the pub when the freckin bolier stops boiling 'wahtah'! I'd rather be a drunken, failed intellect than a parasite discussing a culture that has no historical, genetic nor political connection with my reality....
:three-guesses-as-to-where-i-am-going:
Out of Whiskey....
I'm rewatching S1-5 [best ones IMO], then skipping to S9 to catch up
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
What a solid recruitment strategy! https://t.co/xFtwIPKk4Q
http://www.buzzfeed.com/aliciamelvillesmith/george-r-r-martin-reveals-sixth-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-novel#.iddnaedXxY
He needs to take lessons from our own SeanT ;-)
I still think a referendum will wait until 2017 though rather than be held this year
The EU are even saying electric cars should make a noise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26857743
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds
It's easy to envisage road injuries and deaths increasing as usage of electric vehicles increases. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
It's nothing more than artificial froth, people get along just fine until politicians meddle in their lives.
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures#1
Looks like quite extensive damage to a number of rooms on one side of the residences, probably a dozen floors will need completely gutting and refitting. The hotel rooms on the levels below the terrace that was the seat of the fire look pretty much undamaged from the outside, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of smoke and water damage inside.
An interesting point on the design of the building, the mechanical/service floors are right at the bottom and right at the top, both areas that look pretty much unscathed.
Unlike the previous couple of fires here, this building is owned and operated by a single company (Emaar, a local constructor operated under The Address brand). It will be insured and the high profile nature of the location and the fire itself will see that once the forensics guys have finished on site it will very quickly be covered in scaffolding and tarpaulin so that remedial work can begin.
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Stop cooking both halves at the same time and see which one you like best.
2. Coat the liver with seasoned flour and fry in butter with garlic over a moderate heat for 3 minutes, turn and fry for one minute more.
I guess the timing was very lucky. On another night, later in the night, when most people would have been in bed, could have been far worse. Instead, everybody was up and about getting ready to celebrate midnight.
If we (or ministers) are not worried about important public services being knocked offline, or people's houses now we can turn on the central heating from the car park of the Dog and Duck, perhaps they should think forward a year or two to when the medical internet of things becomes more established and script kiddies and terrorists alike can block the servers to which medical devices report minute-by-minute findings.
Even better; choose cows or pigs liver....
I'm looking forward to this - oh and have some bacon/sprouts handy too.
Yummy.
Nor do I think it will necessarily cause much more grief for people. It is interesting that whilst engine noise is important around town and obviously is also annoying when cars are accelerating away from lights or up a hill, analysis has shown that most of the noise that disturbs people who live close to motorways etc is not caused by engine noise but by the wheel noise. People think it is engine noise but the noise of the tyre on the road surface is a major component.