The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
Cameron will walk withinh 24hrs. He authority will be completely shot. Token statements of wanting him to continue are just that. No one really means it.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
The evidence is that the power restriction on vacuums has cut energy use but not efficiency. It has driven good design.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
Mr. Observer, but even thinking the single market (membership, of course, not being the same as access) is an unequivocal good, do you think it's worth the constant, gradual erosion of sovereignty as the EU moves inexorably towards integration, with the ultimate dream [or nightmare...] of statehood?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, quite. Whilst not, perhaps, a critical argument in the debate, it is useful for highlighting EU meddling *and* EU incompetence.
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
The PM and Chancellor will have to play a central role in negotiating our exit from the EU. It is not a side issue, it is hugely important and affects all aspects of the government - even the future of the UK itself. You can't just leave it to Chris Grayling or some other Leaver. There is no way that Cameron and Osborne can carry on if Leave wins. Likewise, it's now hard to see how Leavers can continue in senior government positions should their side lose.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
The problem with that in the short term is that there is nobody suitable at present to lead the party and why would a conservative government with 4 years to go risk a general election in an uncertain climate that could lose them their majority. Furthermore how would you overcome the Fixed Term Act
The FTA can easily be overcome. You just repeal it.
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
Cameron will walk withinh 24hrs. He authority will be completely shot. Token statements of wanting him to continue are just that. No one really means it.
I am not convinced as he is going anyway. If he did a Miliband and resigned in 24 hours the government would be in chaos as a leadership election is put in motion with the likelihood that both Osborne and Boris would fail and apart from Theresa May, there are few other capable of being PM. Time is needed either way
Mr. Observer, but even thinking the single market (membership, of course, not being the same as access) is an unequivocal good, do you think it's worth the constant, gradual erosion of sovereignty as the EU moves inexorably towards integration, with the ultimate dream [or nightmare...] of statehood?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, quite. Whilst not, perhaps, a critical argument in the debate, it is useful for highlighting EU meddling *and* EU incompetence.
I think this referendum demonstrates where sovereignty ultimately lies. But in general I have no problem with pooling and sharing sovereignty. There are lines. But as this vote shows, if those are crossed - or it looks like they might be - then we can do something about it.
A key factor, I believe, is that UKIP polling support is heaviest in those socio economic groups which have a long record of being less likely to vote
The question is whether the lower differential turnout that usually happens for UKIP supporters in an election would also apply in this referendum. Bear in mind that the question is the existential one for UKIP supporters so they may be a lot more motivated to vote. Turnout tends to be higher in constitutional referenda anyway because of their "once in a generation opportunity, no going back" nature.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
Mr. Observer, pooling? It lies with us, or it lies with Brussels. It can't be 'pooled'.
At the moment, we have an opportunity to leave. But if we remain, the ECJ is in no way accountable. The shift towards more integration will resume immediately (cf the EU Army).
By the time the lines someone (apologies if I mischaracterise your position) who is a soft pro-EU person considers unacceptable are reached, we'll be so tightly entangled that withdrawal will be absolutely horrendous.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
The PCC elections show that you are wrong.
I haven't seen the PCC results? What proportion did UKIP get in that if it was higher than 2015?
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
The PM and Chancellor will have to play a central role in negotiating our exit from the EU. It is not a side issue, it is hugely important and affects all aspects of the government - even the future of the UK itself. You can't just leave it to Chris Grayling or some other Leaver. There is no way that Cameron and Osborne can carry on if Leave wins. Likewise, it's now hard to see how Leavers can continue in senior government positions should their side lose.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
The problem with that in the short term is that there is nobody suitable at present to lead the party and why would a conservative government with 4 years to go risk a general election in an uncertain climate that could lose them their majority. Furthermore how would you overcome the Fixed Term Act
The FTA can easily be overcome. You just repeal it.
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
I think that is probably the most interesting question of all. If there is so much confusion now how much worse could it be if another referendum or GE had to take place on the terms proposed by the Brexit negotiators, maybe 2 or 3 years down the line. The whole thing is getting very messy to be honest
Is MK looking at the same Conservative Party as I am..Not floundering.. agreeing to disagree more like..
Seriously? It feels a complete mess from here.
I think we all have to step back a little. I have not heard any of the Brexit MP's calling for David Cameron to stand down, indeed the opposite is true with recent endorsements from both Gove and Boris. In the event of leave the opposition will be seeking his resignation as they know he is the best candidate for PM and is a danger to them. As we discussed last night there needs to be a period of calm post 23rd June while the new cabinet starts to govern the Country again. If we leave David Cameron can simply appoint a cabinet position from a leaver to act in negotiations with the EU and the rest of the cabinet turn their attention to the economy, NHS, education and security.
The PM and Chancellor will have to play a central role in negotiating our exit from the EU. It is not a side issue, it is hugely important and affects all aspects of the government - even the future of the UK itself. You can't just leave it to Chris Grayling or some other Leaver. There is no way that Cameron and Osborne can carry on if Leave wins. Likewise, it's now hard to see how Leavers can continue in senior government positions should their side lose.
What we should have is a Tory leadership contest and then a general election. The Tories will win that, of course; but they should put their plans for Brexit to the British people to get a mandate for them.
The problem with that in the short term is that there is nobody suitable at present to lead the party and why would a conservative government with 4 years to go risk a general election in an uncertain climate that could lose them their majority. Furthermore how would you overcome the Fixed Term Act
...
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
Leaving aside whether having a vote on one's negotiating position before negotiations actually start is a good idea, I am not sure that having a GE would be the right mechanism for the public to express their view. General elections are never about one issue.
A key factor, I believe, is that UKIP polling support is heaviest in those socio economic groups which have a long record of being less likely to vote
The question is whether the lower differential turnout that usually happens for UKIP supporters in an election would also apply in this referendum. Bear in mind that the question is the existential one for UKIP supporters so they may be a lot more motivated to vote. Turnout tends to be higher in constitutional referenda anyway because of their "once in a generation opportunity, no going back" nature.
That's a very good point that should chill Remainians to the bone.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
Leave is saying that individual businesses can make their own decisions.
If they want to sell to the EU they can comply with the regulations and sell to the EU. If they want to sell only to the UK they can comply with UK regulations (which may, or may not, be the same depending on what our democratically accountable leaders decide)
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
... Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. ...
So, are you claiming that the substantial majority of manufacturers would not have to follow any product regulations at all? That seems unlikely, so perhaps you are claiming that the UK would set up an entire parallel set of regulations, different from the EU ones.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me (quite obviously we'd stick to EU regulations for internal UK purposes), but if I am wrong and it were to happen, I can't for the life of me see how it can conceivably be described as reducing the regulatory burden.
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
The questions for SLab which amazingly they don't seem to be asking is
1) Who are their remaining voters - what are their demographics, why are they voting Labour? 2) Who have they lost? 3) When did they lose them?
'As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?'
As Remain supporters keep on telling us it will take 10 years to negotiate a trade agreement, there will be at least two General Elections during the negotiations for the electorate to have their say.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
Leave is saying that individual businesses can make their own decisions.
If they want to sell to the EU they can comply with the regulations and sell to the EU. If they want to sell only to the UK they can comply with UK regulations (which may, or may not, be the same depending on what our democratically accountable leaders decide)
Your response would explain why 37% of SME's want to leave as most seem to be only interested in the domestic market
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
The evidence is that the power restriction on vacuums has cut energy use but not efficiency. It has driven good design.
I don't know the details, but the easiest way of keeping the vacuum cleaning working with less power is to reduce the area of pick-up head. Thus the same energy per square cm is provided.
The problem with this, is that it makes cleaning a floor take longer. So it saves electricity, but wastes the person's time doing it.
On a serious note, not only is it of course very funny to see Boris hoist by his own petard (suspiciously foreign-sounding phrase), but illustrates the reality for most EU stuff. Heart in the right place, sometimes overreaches, generally trying to protect and ensure transparency for the consumer.
If Boris were Polish, I can see him damning the EU for their cursed restriction on the right of Poles to produce Cornish Pasties.
Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades. I still don't understand how we benefit from making it harder to do business in a market of 500 million people than it is currently.
There will always be regulatory costs for business. They will just be different if we are not part of the EU. If you do not make kettles, then what the EU says about them is irrelevant.
That said, your point 1 is interesting. Do you have a link to something that could give more info on this?
------------------------
Southam - on point 1. I would refer you to the estimates of price gaps between goods prices in the EU and those in lower-cost countries by Scott Bradford which are detailed in Patrick Minford's book.
Your other point
'Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades'
I'm afraid I don't understand.
I thought you were arguing that being an integrated part of the EU market helps exporters. You are right that neither the US or Korea is that, yet their export performance to the Eurozone is better than ours over a long period. So are you now suggesting not being part of the 'integrated European economy' is good for exporters?
One of the amusing things about TTIP is that some Americans are livid at the prospective loss of their sovereign right to buy excruciatingly low-quality US-manufactured industrial 'cheese' labelled as parmesan or mozzarella.
A key factor, I believe, is that UKIP polling support is heaviest in those socio economic groups which have a long record of being less likely to vote
The question is whether the lower differential turnout that usually happens for UKIP supporters in an election would also apply in this referendum. Bear in mind that the question is the existential one for UKIP supporters so they may be a lot more motivated to vote. Turnout tends to be higher in constitutional referenda anyway because of their "once in a generation opportunity, no going back" nature.
EU membership might be an existential issue for many of its supporters but a fair proportion might be NOTA voters.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
Lower heat is more controllable and titratable to get the right depth of toasting. Burnt toast (and dark roasted potatos and chips) is carcinogenic. It must be true because it was in the Daily Kippergraph:
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
... Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. ...
So, are you claiming that the substantial majority of manufacturers would not have to follow any product regulations at all? That seems unlikely, so perhaps you are claiming that the UK would set up an entire parallel set of regulations, different from the EU ones.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me (quite obviously we'd stick to EU regulations for internal UK purposes), but if I am wrong and it were to happen, I can't for the life of me see how it can conceivably be described as reducing the regulatory burden.
What a silly post Richard. You made a fool of yourself ranting about this issue before, I'd advise you not to repeat that performance.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
The PCC elections show that you are wrong.
rubbish , the PCC elections showed nothing of the sort , a turnout of circa 25% or lower has no relevance . You are straw clutching .
... Outside the EU, this wouldn't be the case - those wishing to export to the EU would need to meet EU market regulations (just as those wishing to export to the US do), those not wishing to do so (which is the substantial majority) would not. ...
So, are you claiming that the substantial majority of manufacturers would not have to follow any product regulations at all? That seems unlikely, so perhaps you are claiming that the UK would set up an entire parallel set of regulations, different from the EU ones.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me (quite obviously we'd stick to EU regulations for internal UK purposes), but if I am wrong and it were to happen, I can't for the life of me see how it can conceivably be described as reducing the regulatory burden.
What a silly post Richard. You made a fool of yourself ranting about this issue before, I'd advise you not to repeat that performance.
Thank you for the advice. I shall give it due weight.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
Leave should repeatedly make the case how leaving the EU will improve the economy. Far from reducing people's income, it will increase it.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
Leave is saying that individual businesses can make their own decisions.
If they want to sell to the EU they can comply with the regulations and sell to the EU. If they want to sell only to the UK they can comply with UK regulations (which may, or may not, be the same depending on what our democratically accountable leaders decide)
Your response would explain why 37% of SME's want to leave as most seem to be only interested in the domestic market
The EU provides the largest source of cheap labour.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
Lower heat is more controllable and titratable to get the right depth of toasting. Burnt toast (and dark roasted potatos and chips) is carcinogenic. It must be true because it was in the Daily Kippergraph:
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
Leave should repeatedly make the case how leaving the EU will improve the economy. Far from reducing people's income, it will increase it.
Even improve is too strong. The net position wold stay the same, we would just have domestic suppliers replacing EU imports, many of which are finished goods rather than raw materials (which we couldn't replace domestically).
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
Lower heat is more controllable and titratable to get the right depth of toasting. Burnt toast (and dark roasted potatos and chips) is carcinogenic. It must be true because it was in the Daily Kippergraph:
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
Lower heat is more controllable and titratable to get the right depth of toasting. Burnt toast (and dark roasted potatos and chips) is carcinogenic. It must be true because it was in the Daily Kippergraph:
Yes, to get the optimum toast taste, you might want to operate your toaster on a lower power, but the economically and ecologically ideal approach would involve quickly zapping at high power. Which is why it would make no sense (from an environmental point of view) to limit the power of toasters. Or kettles.
It's obvious what's happened here. The EU presumably has plans to introduce standards to improve the efficiency of kettles and toasters, which I imagine would involve design factors such as materials, insulation and form. Some journalist has then grabbed the wrong end of the stick and interpreted this to mean the introduction of power limits, and the story has galloped off into the anti-EU press from there.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
Lower heat is more controllable and titratable to get the right depth of toasting. Burnt toast (and dark roasted potatos and chips) is carcinogenic. It must be true because it was in the Daily Kippergraph:
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
Leave should repeatedly make the case how leaving the EU will improve the economy. Far from reducing people's income, it will increase it.
Even improve is too strong. The net position wold stay the same, we would just have domestic suppliers replacing EU imports, many of which are finished goods rather than raw materials (which we couldn't replace domestically).
But that would mean more money stays in the UK economy rather than going abroad - which won't be a bad thing.
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
They aren't doom scenarios, they are saying on balance, we are better off being part of it helping to drive rather than outside it as a passenger.
And to get personal for a moment ( ), I think you are over-worried about our vulnerability to finreg. We have a huge voice atm into the new draft regulations, into ESMA, into new initiatives (most FCA DPs, CPs, and the like end up somewhere embedded into EU directives), and we are excluded from banking union. I think we are in a better place than you fear.
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
It's now all about Quad-Play.
I think Sky might actually try and buy o2 now.
BT have very much parked their tanks on Sky's lawn.
The daily mail and other ‘leave’ newspapers are making quite an issue that the EU is holding back the introduction of new laws on the power of kettles and toasters until after the referendum. Leave is making a big play on our sovereignty but if the EU introduces such laws throughout the EU are leave really saying the UK will not comply with these regulations and if so how are we going to export to the EU. It seems to me that even by leaving the UK will still have de facto regulations to comply with and we are not even inside the EU to have some say on these matters, even if we do not always win our case. I would be interested in comments from leavers on this point
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
But a low-power vacuum cleaner will not be as efficient in extracting dirt and fluff from carpets (held by static electricity as well as friction) - which means that the user will have to go over the same area more times to clean it - hence using more energy.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
Leave should repeatedly make the case how leaving the EU will improve the economy. Far from reducing people's income, it will increase it.
Yep. All we need to do is to abolish our tariffs under WTO trade terms (we will let the EU and the US keep theirs) and we will see the economy grow by 4% in ten years time. Well of course farmers and manufacturers will suffer, but a price worth paying, according to Leave.
A key factor, I believe, is that UKIP polling support is heaviest in those socio economic groups which have a long record of being less likely to vote
The question is whether the lower differential turnout that usually happens for UKIP supporters in an election would also apply in this referendum. Bear in mind that the question is the existential one for UKIP supporters so they may be a lot more motivated to vote. Turnout tends to be higher in constitutional referenda anyway because of their "once in a generation opportunity, no going back" nature.
EU membership might be an existential issue for many of its supporters but a fair proportion might be NOTA voters.
I hadn't thought of that. If I understand correctly, the respondents on a polling company questionnaire want to be helpful and not look ignorant when asked a question about how they vote, so they randomly choose UKIP, but really don't care enough to vote. If that case, they might likely answer Leave to the equivalent question about the referendum and again not vote.
If all that's true, the phone based companies have a better handle on who is going to turn out for any election or referendum than online ones. The other theory in my original post implies the phone based companies aren't better at prediction. It depends on the overall turnout. Online companies get better at higher turnout.
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
It's now all about Quad-Play.
I think Sky might actually try and buy o2 now.
BT have very much parked their tanks on Sky's lawn.
This was what was totally missed during whole phone hacking etc in why Murdoch wanted to combine his businesses in the UK. It was about bringing together content and delivery.
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
It's now all about Quad-Play.
I think Sky might actually try and buy o2 now.
BT have very much parked their tanks on Sky's lawn.
Well there were rumours that Sky were in talks to buy Tesco Mobile at one point before Dave Lewis chickened out. It wouldn't surprise me, Telefonica still desperately need to sell O2 to reduce their debt. I think Sky might go for the big play and buy Telefonica Europe and buy both the German and UK networks to offer quad play in both markets.
Don't forget that Vodafone are also offering quad play as well now in a limited roll out to existing mobile customers, I just took up free unlimited 40Mb fibre with them for a year.
@AFP: #BREAKING EU blocks mega sale of Britain's O2 to Hutchison: official
Before Eurosceptics get all angry, the UK regulator also wanted the same.
Yes, this would have happened in or out, Ofcom just didn't have the balls to do it themselves, or at least make the case to the CMA.
Yup
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
It's now all about Quad-Play.
I think Sky might actually try and buy o2 now.
BT have very much parked their tanks on Sky's lawn.
This was what was totally missed during whole phone hacking etc in why Murdoch wanted to combine his businesses in the UK. It was about bringing together content and delivery.
The chap behind Virgin Media is also sniffing around o2 as well.
o2 in the UK is a very profitable business just their Spanish owner is debt laden.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
The 7.5% swing to the status quo should start soon.Pulpstar could be right too a 3% late swing to status quo. IDS should certainly inspire voters,especially disabled voters,to energetically support Remain.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
They aren't doom scenarios, they are saying on balance, we are better off being part of it helping to drive rather than outside it as a passenger.
And to get personal for a moment ( ), I think you are over-worried about our vulnerability to finreg. We have a huge voice atm into the new draft regulations, into ESMA, into new initiatives (most FCA DPs, CPs, and the like end up somewhere embedded into EU directives), and we are excluded from banking union. I think we are in a better place than you fear.
I won't go through it all again on another thread, but my position hasn't changed, I don't think yours will either.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Plus threatening to leave doesn't really work any more. They know the market and as you say, Three offers some pretty good deals, so they will just say "see ya".
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
The questions for SLab which amazingly they don't seem to be asking is
1) Who are their remaining voters - what are their demographics, why are they voting Labour? 2) Who have they lost? 3) When did they lose them?
Once they've answered those 3 they can move onto
4) How do we attract new/former voters
What could make things change is an SNP/Tory alliance to frack Scotland.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Plus threatening to leave doesn't really work any more. They know the market and as you say, Three offers some pretty good deals, so they will just say "see ya".
Are we talking about mobile phone companies or the EU?
We should all live off steamed rice and fish, and raw vegetables
No we shouldn't. Rice is a very starchy high carb staple, fish is good (but watch out for heavy metal contamination) and raw veg is fine but many of the vitamins and minerals in vegetables require cooking or some form of processing to be assimilated into the body. And many of the vitamins are fat soluable, so need to be accompanied by fats.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
I still don't see why it helps us to make it more difficult to do business in what your figures show is an extremely important export market.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Plus threatening to leave doesn't really work any more. They know the market and as you say, Three offers some pretty good deals, so they will just say "see ya".
Threatening to leave works well when there is a viable alternative, my AA renewal came through and a quick phonecall got £100 knocked off as the RAC (And their own introductory offer! were clearly visible) - the Three situation is quite different. They were in a uniquely cheap price point, weirdly offering more data than ANYONE else. The £20 unlimited data is still the best offer so far as I can tell.
Chris Grayling: ‘Tory Party must reunite after Brexit poll or expose UK to risk of Jeremy Corbyn’
Commons Leader and Out campaigner Chris Grayling tells Political Editor Joe Murphy of his determination to avoid a civil war among Conservatives after the referendum campaign
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
I use wifi 98% of the time and fall back on my giffgaff data allowance. I've a 3 dongle for *other* stuff.
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Plus threatening to leave doesn't really work any more. They know the market and as you say, Three offers some pretty good deals, so they will just say "see ya".
Are we talking about mobile phone companies or the EU?
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
The questions for SLab which amazingly they don't seem to be asking is
1) Who are their remaining voters - what are their demographics, why are they voting Labour? 2) Who have they lost? 3) When did they lose them?
Once they've answered those 3 they can move onto
4) How do we attract new/former voters
What could make things change is an SNP/Tory alliance to frack Scotland.
Keep up.
'NICOLA Sturgeon has "taken flight from reason" after cynically hardening her stance against fracking in a move that will damage the case for Scottish independence and be warmly welcomed by Vladimir Putin, a former Government advisor has claimed.'
Let's look at how much good that single market access is doing the UK. In the last quarter our trade deficit reached the worst level since 2008 and the peak of the last boom with the bust imminent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36256358
As the BBC notes: "Meanwhile, Germany's trade surplus hit an all-time high in March as its exports surged, according to monthly data published by the federal statistics office Destatis."
What we have seen over recent years is a declining share of our exports going to this single market and more and more going to countries that we don't actually have trade deals with (other than the overarching WTO agreements) such as the USA. In the last quarter growth fell sharply because of the trade effect and a disproportionate share of that deficit arose from our trade with other EU countries inside this single market.
The reasons for this are complex but significant underlying factors are that we are still running a very large public sector deficit which artificially boosts demand inside the UK. In contrast Germany, with it exports boom, is running a substantial surplus curtailing domestic demand for our goods and services.
Slightly misquoting the Japanese Emperor the single market has not developed necessarily to our advantage. It reduces our growth, reduces our employment, reduces our tax base and undermines our ability to fund public services. Of course there are sections of our economy that benefit from the opportunities that the Single Market creates, the City perhaps being the most obvious, but in most of our economy, even cars, it has a net negative effect.
This does not necessarily mean leaving it is a good thing. Things may well go from bad to worse if we do. Leaving the Single Market would not cure the major structural, educational, managerial, investment and cultural problems that we have in this country. But lets get a sense of perspective. If access to the single market which has resulted in a deteriorating balance of payments over a very long period of time is the best that the EU can offer us their offer is less than tempting. And those that claim it is an unalloyed gain for Britain are not really looking at the situation we are in.
Last I recall the argument was that nearly all companies since they don't export at all would be freed from regulations
Can you give us any examples of "nearly all companies" that "don't export at all"?
My own business trades locally and does not export. As is the case with 90% of companies.
Isn't it 94% of SMEs? It's beyond daft handwaving to pretend this isn't absurd over regulation.
94% of SMEs and 90% of total businesses sounds about right to me. Yet it seems to be news to Mr @Scott_P
For 2015, exportation of goods and services to the EU accounted for 12% of our GDP, to non-EU countries it was 16%. If the figures took into account re-exports then it would be closer to 10% and 17% for EU and non-EU.
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
I still don't see why it helps us to make it more difficult to do business in what your figures show is an extremely important export market.
Because, for me at least, it isn't just about economic gains and losses. In the end staying or going isn't going to make that much difference to our economy, anyone who claims it will be a disaster or lead to a new era of 4-5% annual growth is being dishonest. The issue, for me and many others, is about our sovereignty and the direction the EU is taking, the inexorable march to the superstate is not something I want this country to be a part of and leaving is the only way to ensure it doesn't happen.
Sean Fear still in denial I see of clear evidence that UKIP are overstated in Online polls by 3 to 5% . Welsh Assembly UKIP actually polled 12.5% compared to pollsters 16 %
Is the referendum going to be more like a general election or more like a Welsh Assembly election?
Online pollsters purport to show that UKIP support has increased since the 2015 GE , telephone pollsters show it is slightly down . The local elections last week confirm that the online pollsters are wrong and telephone pollsters are right .
The PCC elections show that you are wrong.
rubbish , the PCC elections showed nothing of the sort , a turnout of circa 25% or lower has no relevance . You are straw clutching .
Nope you are just ignoring the evidence because it doesn't suit your narrative. Typical Lib Dem dishonesty.
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU. Also the pasty he waves is protected by EU regs. He just blustered and really gave the impression he couldn't get away from the interview fast enough
It's a kitchen table way to illustrate the level of EU interference in our lives. Low information voters can latch onto this messaging, higher order arguments about sovereignty don't get the same traction.
I've not been able to find any concrete evidence that the EU is planning to limit the power of kettles and toasters. This would be a nonsensical thing to do - a lower power device would, of course, consume more energy overall since it would be used for longer and dissipate more heat to the environment. The way to make such devices more efficient is to improve aspects such as insulation and design, and I'm sure this must be what the EU would be addressing.
I reckon we can chalk this up as another daft euro-myth propagated by journalists with zero scientific knowledge!
What did the EU do about vacuum cleaners? The same arguments applied to those but they still capped the power. I cannot share your confidence.
No, the same arguments don't apply to vacuum cleans and other devices whose purpose is to do mechanical work. These devices offer scope for design improvement to compensate for power limitations, and so it makes sense to limit their power.
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
But a low-power vacuum cleaner will not be as efficient in extracting dirt and fluff from carpets (held by static electricity as well as friction) - which means that the user will have to go over the same area more times to clean it - hence using more energy.
Certainly it's a case of diminishing returns with vacuum cleaners, and there will be some point at which lower power doesn't make sense, but that point is substantially lower than the current limits. In principle, better design can compensate for lower power. IIRC, Dyson was actually lobbying for even lower limits.
With heating devices, though, lower power gives no returns at all and is actually counter-productive. You simply need a certain amount of energy to heat a teapot-full of water to boiling point, and the quicker it is done, the better. That's why power limits on such devices would make no sense at all.
Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades. I still don't understand how we benefit from making it harder to do business in a market of 500 million people than it is currently.
There will always be regulatory costs for business. They will just be different if we are not part of the EU. If you do not make kettles, then what the EU says about them is irrelevant.
That said, your point 1 is interesting. Do you have a link to something that could give more info on this?
------------------------
Southam - on point 1. I would refer you to the estimates of price gaps between goods prices in the EU and those in lower-cost countries by Scott Bradford which are detailed in Patrick Minford's book.
Your other point
'Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades'
I'm afraid I don't understand.
I thought you were arguing that being an integrated part of the EU market helps exporters. You are right that neither the US or Korea is that, yet their export performance to the Eurozone is better than ours over a long period. So are you now suggesting not being part of the 'integrated European economy' is good for exporters?
No, I am not. I am saying that leaving the Single Market will make it harder to do business in the EU. Our business, for example, can organise an event in Barcelona (as we are doing currently) as easily as we can in Birmingham currently. There are no barriers in place. That makes it an efficient option for us and so incentivises us to do more events in Europe - which is good news for our London operation because everything can be handled from there. If we withdraw from the Single Market, those efficiencies are going to reduce and it will take longer to organise events in Europe and more expensive, so we will do fewer of them in Europe and more in Asia and the US. That's bad news for our London operation (and employees) and good news our HK and DC operations. Korean and US companies are not faced with that issue, because they have never built their businesses on being part of the Single Market.
The problems all started when Ofcom waved through the T-Mobile/Orange merger without extracting much larger concessions from them in terms of their existing 4G spectrum. They were so desperate to undo the damage of the high cost of 3G licences delaying 4G roll out they gave away too much. If it were possible I would like to see EE demerged, or at least forced to spin out a competitor which owns enough spectrum to make a go of it, or be bought by Hutchison/Voda to make BT/EE's position less dominant. They own 45% of 4G spectrum last time I looked, it makes it impossible for the other three to compete fairly.
I basically agree.
Ofcom have made a right mess of the UK telecoms market. EE has way too much spectrum, and allowing BT to buy them and end up with the major landline, mobile, and infrastructure components all under the control of one company is precisely why there is the impetus for Hutchison and Telefonica to get out of a market, or merge, as competing against that behemoth will prove very difficult.
BT should be forced to sell a significant amount of spectrum and lose Openreach.
I read that article just after waking up this morning. It seems to me that if you are still wondering whether a structural change has taken place in Scottish politics you are not in touch with reality.
The questions for SLab which amazingly they don't seem to be asking is 1) Who are their remaining voters - what are their demographics, why are they voting Labour? ...
Answer to 1) Sid and Doris Macbonkers 13 Jimmy Street, Glasgae (have relatives in Neasden)
I'm with three, who have stuck my all you can eat data deal that I was previously on for ~ £13 a month up to £20.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
Have you threatened to leave? That often works wonders.
It's still the best all you eat data plan, though thinking about it my phone is barely good enough to take advantage and I'm on wifi alot of the time anyway. I'll need to have a look at what I actually use.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
I use wifi 98% of the time and fall back on my giffgaff data allowance. I've a 3 dongle for *other* stuff.
Giffgaff looks cheap as chips. Check your vanilla inbox.
Comments
Anyway, some more of the best Euro Myths:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm
http://infacts.org/cgqaatlw4aazc_s/
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, quite. Whilst not, perhaps, a critical argument in the debate, it is useful for highlighting EU meddling *and* EU incompetence.
The FTA can easily be overcome. You just repeal it.
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
At the moment, we have an opportunity to leave. But if we remain, the ECJ is in no way accountable. The shift towards more integration will resume immediately (cf the EU Army).
By the time the lines someone (apologies if I mischaracterise your position) who is a soft pro-EU person considers unacceptable are reached, we'll be so tightly entangled that withdrawal will be absolutely horrendous.
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
I think that is probably the most interesting question of all. If there is so much confusion now how much worse could it be if another referendum or GE had to take place on the terms proposed by the Brexit negotiators, maybe 2 or 3 years down the line. The whole thing is getting very messy to be honest
As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?
Leaving aside whether having a vote on one's negotiating position before negotiations actually start is a good idea, I am not sure that having a GE would be the right mechanism for the public to express their view. General elections are never about one issue.
If they want to sell to the EU they can comply with the regulations and sell to the EU. If they want to sell only to the UK they can comply with UK regulations (which may, or may not, be the same depending on what our democratically accountable leaders decide)
With kettles and toasters, on the other hand, the sole purpose is to convert electricity to heat. This means that it makes more sense to use a high power device to avoid wasting heat.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me (quite obviously we'd stick to EU regulations for internal UK purposes), but if I am wrong and it were to happen, I can't for the life of me see how it can conceivably be described as reducing the regulatory burden.
1) Who are their remaining voters - what are their demographics, why are they voting Labour?
2) Who have they lost?
3) When did they lose them?
Once they've answered those 3 they can move onto
4) How do we attract new/former voters
@SophyRidgeSky: Yep, those Cornish pasties given protected status by the EU... https://t.co/avE9QeywVA
'As for Brexit negotiations, don't you think that the electorate has a right to a say on what the UK's position should be?'
As Remain supporters keep on telling us it will take 10 years to negotiate a trade agreement, there will be at least two General Elections during the negotiations for the electorate to have their say.
I don't know the details, but the easiest way of keeping the vacuum cleaning working with less power is to reduce the area of pick-up head. Thus the same energy per square cm is provided.
The problem with this, is that it makes cleaning a floor take longer. So it saves electricity, but wastes the person's time doing it.
On a serious note, not only is it of course very funny to see Boris hoist by his own petard (suspiciously foreign-sounding phrase), but illustrates the reality for most EU stuff. Heart in the right place, sometimes overreaches, generally trying to protect and ensure transparency for the consumer.
If Boris were Polish, I can see him damning the EU for their cursed restriction on the right of Poles to produce Cornish Pasties.
Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades. I still don't understand how we benefit from making it harder to do business in a market of 500 million people than it is currently.
There will always be regulatory costs for business. They will just be different if we are not part of the EU. If you do not make kettles, then what the EU says about them is irrelevant.
That said, your point 1 is interesting. Do you have a link to something that could give more info on this?
------------------------
Southam - on point 1. I would refer you to the estimates of price gaps between goods prices in the EU and those in lower-cost countries by Scott Bradford which are detailed in Patrick Minford's book.
Your other point
'Neither the US or Korean economies have been integrated parts of the European economy for the last few decades'
I'm afraid I don't understand.
I thought you were arguing that being an integrated part of the EU market helps exporters. You are right that neither the US or Korea is that, yet their export performance to the Eurozone is better than ours over a long period. So are you now suggesting not being part of the 'integrated European economy' is good for exporters?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11996554/Crunchy-toast-could-give-you-cancer-FSA-warns.html
Also, there is a downward trend for EU exports as a share of GDP. It's actually why I find all of these doom scenarios particularly funny. If, unlikely as it seems, the government decides to go it alone under WTO rules with the EU post-Brexit then we are looking at a reduction in exports to the EU as tariffs are introduced, however, given that tariffs will work both ways, domestic suppliers will be picking up a lot of new orders from customers who previously imported from the EU. What we lose from exports we will gain from fewer imports, our net trade position is absolutely diabolical at the moment, the current consensus is that it wiped 0.3% off GDP in the first quarter. While I wouldn't advocate leaving the single market, I don't see it as some world-ending move that will result in the British economy collapsing. If it does, then the foundations of our economy are much worse than people think.
Farage's fury as BBC bosses 'try to freeze him out' of televised Brexit debate
NIGEL Farage was at war with the BBC tonight over an alleged attempt to freeze him out of a crunch EU referendum television debate.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/668983/Farage-fury-BBC-bosses-freeze-him-out-televised-Brexit-debate
Pause
"iain Duncan Smith. Chris Grayling"
#allthegooddebaters
Leave should repeatedly make the case how leaving the EU will improve the economy. Far from reducing people's income, it will increase it.
@ChrisGiles_: I am a bad person. I promised I wouldn't tweet the 1997 Brexiteer prediction social chapter would cost 20% GDP https://t.co/sJ7wackAYs
The £10.25bn Hutchison Whampoa (Three UK) deal to buy O2 from debt-laden Telefonica looks set to face a big hurdle after the Competition and Markets Authority preliminarily ruled that the “transaction threatens to significantly [affect] competition” in the United Kingdom’s mobile market.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/10/cma-calls-for-significant-competition-review-of-three-uk-and-o2-deal.html
It's obvious what's happened here. The EU presumably has plans to introduce standards to improve the efficiency of kettles and toasters, which I imagine would involve design factors such as materials, insulation and form. Some journalist has then grabbed the wrong end of the stick and interpreted this to mean the introduction of power limits, and the story has galloped off into the anti-EU press from there.
"No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra three years in the Geriatric ward"
(Also the head of the Vichy Government)
And to get personal for a moment (
I think Sky might actually try and buy o2 now.
BT have very much parked their tanks on Sky's lawn.
I haven't found a better deal at the moment, so sticking with it. I'd like the opportunity to potentially switch to O2, mind.
I'm with o2. Really recommend. EE are a bunch of numpties. Avoid them like the plague.
If all that's true, the phone based companies have a better handle on who is going to turn out for any election or referendum than online ones. The other theory in my original post implies the phone based companies aren't better at prediction. It depends on the overall turnout. Online companies get better at higher turnout.
http://tinyurl.com/zbcee4q
Don't forget that Vodafone are also offering quad play as well now in a limited roll out to existing mobile customers, I just took up free unlimited 40Mb fibre with them for a year.
o2 in the UK is a very profitable business just their Spanish owner is debt laden.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
IDS should certainly inspire voters,especially disabled voters,to energetically support Remain.
£13 for unlimited data really was probably too cheap, hence why they've canned it.
Are we talking about mobile phone companies or the EU?
Chris Grayling: ‘Tory Party must reunite after Brexit poll or expose UK to risk of Jeremy Corbyn’
Commons Leader and Out campaigner Chris Grayling tells Political Editor Joe Murphy of his determination to avoid a civil war among Conservatives after the referendum campaign
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chris-grayling-tory-party-must-reunite-after-brexit-poll-or-expose-uk-to-risk-of-corbyn-a3245246.html
'NICOLA Sturgeon has "taken flight from reason" after cynically hardening her stance against fracking in a move that will damage the case for Scottish independence and be warmly welcomed by Vladimir Putin, a former Government advisor has claimed.'
http://tinyurl.com/zefgmzs
As the BBC notes: "Meanwhile, Germany's trade surplus hit an all-time high in March as its exports surged, according to monthly data published by the federal statistics office Destatis."
What we have seen over recent years is a declining share of our exports going to this single market and more and more going to countries that we don't actually have trade deals with (other than the overarching WTO agreements) such as the USA. In the last quarter growth fell sharply because of the trade effect and a disproportionate share of that deficit arose from our trade with other EU countries inside this single market.
The reasons for this are complex but significant underlying factors are that we are still running a very large public sector deficit which artificially boosts demand inside the UK. In contrast Germany, with it exports boom, is running a substantial surplus curtailing domestic demand for our goods and services.
Slightly misquoting the Japanese Emperor the single market has not developed necessarily to our advantage. It reduces our growth, reduces our employment, reduces our tax base and undermines our ability to fund public services. Of course there are sections of our economy that benefit from the opportunities that the Single Market creates, the City perhaps being the most obvious, but in most of our economy, even cars, it has a net negative effect.
This does not necessarily mean leaving it is a good thing. Things may well go from bad to worse if we do. Leaving the Single Market would not cure the major structural, educational, managerial, investment and cultural problems that we have in this country. But lets get a sense of perspective. If access to the single market which has resulted in a deteriorating balance of payments over a very long period of time is the best that the EU can offer us their offer is less than tempting. And those that claim it is an unalloyed gain for Britain are not really looking at the situation we are in.
UK Stats Auth says final net figure on average per year £7.1 bn - works out around £136m a week - about half figure on side of #Brexit bus
@BBCNormanS: EU "has been at the heart of our commerciall success" says Chief Minister of Gibraltar @FabianPicardo
With heating devices, though, lower power gives no returns at all and is actually counter-productive. You simply need a certain amount of energy to heat a teapot-full of water to boiling point, and the quicker it is done, the better. That's why power limits on such devices would make no sense at all.
Ofcom have made a right mess of the UK telecoms market. EE has way too much spectrum, and allowing BT to buy them and end up with the major landline, mobile, and infrastructure components all under the control of one company is precisely why there is the impetus for Hutchison and Telefonica to get out of a market, or merge, as competing against that behemoth will prove very difficult.
BT should be forced to sell a significant amount of spectrum and lose Openreach.
(have relatives in Neasden)