I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
In the majority of cases, if a person should not be using a fire extinguisher, then they should be looking for a fire extinguisher. Not the colour of the appropriate fire extinguisher that they THINK they remember from school.
A Single market does not need a Parliament, currency, court that promotes political integration, Commission or tens of thousands of directives and regulations which have nothing to do with trade. It needs a court or council to adjudicate on matters of trade compliance and a secretariate to oversee negotiations. Nothing more.
For it to operate in that way with any longevity it also needs an outside guarantor of security. It's dangerously complacent to think that the US will play that role in perpetuity, particularly given recent developments.
No, its constituent countries need to maintain armed forces and as they have a common interest they are likely to act together when they feel collectively threatened. NATO fills that role as the US & Canada currently feels they have an interest, but if they no longer play there is nothing stopping us carrying on.
Sure, there's nothing stopping us carrying on, but when there's no NATO, and Germany's hard power is obliged to match its economic power while there's a Russian menace on the periphery and no political coherence to the unity of the democratic states, I don't think that scenario ends well.
Pre-World War I there was plenty of economic interdependence but it didn't prevent that tragedy from occurring.
The biggest issue is that currently no one in Europe (apart from Greece) want's to spend the money on defence. That is what putting a strain on NATO.
Something that troubles me about the US-pulls-out scenario (which we have to plan for) is that if we leave the EU we will have next to no soft power in Europe. And without us I don't see a European defensive alliance working.
No. We will have soft power in Europe, especially the east. We are ducking our responsibilities though rather than leading from the front.
Does anyone have a prediction for the day that the exchanges magically make LEAVE the favourite. I remember seeing Corbo's odds tumbling in one afternoon/evening last year and cashing out too soon....
That is hard - but the people betting on leave are those generally with not too much money, having had their wages squeezed by excessive EU (and non EU) immigration.
It still seems incredible that the odds are 11/4 against - when the online polls aren't picking up the C2DEs who have no computers or use them for other things - and who may not now have landlines just PAYG mobiles and so are slipping through the phone pollers.
Saw an advert today for a mobile-phone receptionist service - all your callers speak first to them & only the ones you want to speak to get put through. Rules out cold-callers.
Haven't got a link for that service have you? Sounds brilliant to me if it is not too expensive.
No, afraid not. It was an ad on a bus shelter where my bus stopped. Will take more notice next time I pass that place & try to spot one.
It's not just safety standards. The last example that I came across in my work is the colour coding for different types of bottled gas. This is standardised in the EU: white for oxygen, red for hydrogen, etc., but varies around the rest of the world. There are countless examples of such standardisation at the EU level, which, in general, benefits the industries involved.
The level of standardisation in the European single market goes way beyond the remit of the WTO.
There are also examples where the EU has produced standards which are downright dangerous. An example I have discussed in the past with Mr Twisted on here is fire extinguishers where the EU standard now makes it far more difficult to tell from a distance what type of fire extinguisher is hanging on a wall. The rest of the world has a much better system.
Then there is changing the colour of Wiring. AC went from red/black to blue/brown.
Positive earthed d.c. used in telecoms etc went from blue black to grey blue. Unfortunately where blue was -48v it is now 0v. Its also illegal to use the old wiring colour on mods to existing installations so blue can be either neutral or live. Brilliant.
In the UK you are not allowed sockets in the bathrooms with exception of shaver sockets. In Europe you can. Quite often these sockets are over sinks and I have even seen them positioned next to the bath.
I stayed in a place in India with the main fusebox complete with naked wiring in the shower.
A Single market does not need a Parliament, currency, court that promotes political integration, Commission or tens of thousands of directives and regulations which have nothing to do with trade. It needs a court or council to adjudicate on matters of trade compliance and a secretariate to oversee negotiations. Nothing more.
For it to operate in that way with any longevity it also needs an outside guarantor of security. It's dangerously complacent to think that the US will play that role in perpetuity, particularly given recent developments.
No, its constituent countries need to maintain armed forces and as they have a common interest they are likely to act together when they feel collectively threatened. NATO fills that role as the US & Canada currently feels they have an interest, but if they no longer play there is nothing stopping us carrying on.
Sure, there's nothing stopping us carrying on, but when there's no NATO, and Germany's hard power is obliged to match its economic power while there's a Russian menace on the periphery and no political coherence to the unity of the democratic states, I don't think that scenario ends well.
Pre-World War I there was plenty of economic interdependence but it didn't prevent that tragedy from occurring.
The biggest issue is that currently no one in Europe (apart from Greece) want's to spend the money on defence. That is what putting a strain on NATO.
Something that troubles me about the US-pulls-out scenario (which we have to plan for) is that if we leave the EU we will have next to no soft power in Europe. And without us I don't see a European defensive alliance working.
No. We will have soft power in Europe, especially the east. We are ducking our responsibilities though rather than leading from the front.
Which responsibilities are those, Mr. White, and why does the UK have them?
A Single market does not need a Parliament, currency, court that promotes political integration, Commission or tens of thousands of directives and regulations which have nothing to do with trade. It needs a court or council to adjudicate on matters of trade compliance and a secretariate to oversee negotiations. Nothing more.
For it to operate in that way with any longevity it also needs an outside guarantor of security. It's dangerously complacent to think that the US will play that role in perpetuity, particularly given recent developments.
No, its constituent countries need to maintain armed forces and as they have a common interest they are likely to act together when they feel collectively threatened. NATO fills that role as the US & Canada currently feels they have an interest, but if they no longer play there is nothing stopping us carrying on.
Sure, there's nothing stopping us carrying on, but when there's no NATO, and Germany's hard power is obliged to match its economic power while there's a Russian menace on the periphery and no political coherence to the unity of the democratic states, I don't think that scenario ends well.
Pre-World War I there was plenty of economic interdependence but it didn't prevent that tragedy from occurring.
The biggest issue is that currently no one in Europe (apart from Greece) want's to spend the money on defence. That is what putting a strain on NATO.
Something that troubles me about the US-pulls-out scenario (which we have to plan for) is that if we leave the EU we will have next to no soft power in Europe. And without us I don't see a European defensive alliance working.
No. We will have soft power in Europe, especially the east. We are ducking our responsibilities though rather than leading from the front.
It's specifically to avoid contact with Eastern Europeans that we will leave the EU. But that will give us soft power in their region?
Did anyone say we did? We don't pay much at all into NATO. We are supposed to spend 2% on defence as part of NATO (which we do, once the books have been simmered for a sufficiently long period)
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
In the majority of cases, if a person should not be using a fire extinguisher, then they should be looking for a fire extinguisher. Not the colour of the appropriate fire extinguisher that they THINK they remember from school.
Problem comes when you pick up the wrong extinguisher for the job, I have and it didn't put out the fire.
Yes and no - it's a split ward which the Tories won in 2015, but the councillor who died was Labour. Good result for Labour to take the ward back so easily, though.
I don't understand BigW's claim that it's a Labour area and the result shows a big UKIP surge. As noted above, it's been Tory-held, and UKIP's vote more than halved over last year. The Tory vote went down by three quarters and Labour's merely halved.
A Single market does not need a Parliament, currency, court that promotes political integration, Commission or tens of thousands of directives and regulations which have nothing to do with trade. It needs a court or council to adjudicate on matters of trade compliance and a secretariate to oversee negotiations. Nothing more.
For it to operate in that way with any longevity it also needs an outside guarantor of security. It's dangerously complacent to think that the US will play that role in perpetuity, particularly given recent developments.
No, its constituent countries need to maintain armed forces and as they have a common interest they are likely to act together when they feel collectively threatened. NATO fills that role as the US & Canada currently feels they have an interest, but if they no longer play there is nothing stopping us carrying on.
Sure, there's nothing stopping us carrying on, but when there's no NATO, and Germany's hard power is obliged to match its economic power while there's a Russian menace on the periphery and no political coherence to the unity of the democratic states, I don't think that scenario ends well.
Pre-World War I there was plenty of economic interdependence but it didn't prevent that tragedy from occurring.
The biggest issue is that currently no one in Europe (apart from Greece) want's to spend the money on defence. That is what putting a strain on NATO.
Something that troubles me about the US-pulls-out scenario (which we have to plan for) is that if we leave the EU we will have next to no soft power in Europe. And without us I don't see a European defensive alliance working.
No. We will have soft power in Europe, especially the east. We are ducking our responsibilities though rather than leading from the front.
Which responsibilities are those, Mr. White, and why does the UK have them?
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Never impressed. She came up with one good idea, increase the ratio of kids to teachers in nursery schools. (She got Loughton's job on the back of it). It would have lowered the cost per child and increased income per school to pay better wages etc etc. Clegg and co blocked it so she STFU and moved departments. Principles? None.
A Single market does not need a Parliament, currency, court that promotes political integration, Commission or tens of thousands of directives and regulations which have nothing to do with trade. It needs a court or council to adjudicate on matters of trade compliance and a secretariate to oversee negotiations. Nothing more.
For it to operate in that way with any longevity it also needs an outside guarantor of security. It's dangerously complacent to think that the US will play that role in perpetuity, particularly given recent developments.
No, its constituent countries need to maintain armed forces and as they have a common interest they are likely to act together when they feel collectively threatened. NATO fills that role as the US & Canada currently feels they have an interest, but if they no longer play there is nothing stopping us carrying on.
Sure, there's nothing stopping us carrying on, but when there's no NATO, and Germany's hard power is obliged to match its economic power while there's a Russian menace on the periphery and no political coherence to the unity of the democratic states, I don't think that scenario ends well.
Pre-World War I there was plenty of economic interdependence but it didn't prevent that tragedy from occurring.
The biggest issue is that currently no one in Europe (apart from Greece) want's to spend the money on defence. That is what putting a strain on NATO.
Something that troubles me about the US-pulls-out scenario (which we have to plan for) is that if we leave the EU we will have next to no soft power in Europe. And without us I don't see a European defensive alliance working.
No. We will have soft power in Europe, especially the east. We are ducking our responsibilities though rather than leading from the front.
It's specifically to avoid contact with Eastern Europeans that we will leave the EU. But that will give us soft power in their region?
No, it is specifically to control immigration from them.
We have common interest in defence and the transatlantic alliance.
Did anyone say we did? We don't pay much at all into NATO. We are supposed to spend 2% on defence as part of NATO (which we do, once the books have been simmered for a sufficiently long period)
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on a particular fire can make matters much worse and cost you your life. If the whole point of colour coding is to make sure you use the right extinguisher then making that coding so small that you can't tell from a reasonable distance what type of extinguisher it is kind of defeats the whole purpose.
Did anyone say we did? We don't pay much at all into NATO. We are supposed to spend 2% on defence as part of NATO (which we do, once the books have been simmered for a sufficiently long period)
Did anyone say we did? We don't pay much at all into NATO. We are supposed to spend 2% on defence as part of NATO (which we do, once the books have been simmered for a sufficiently long period)
Anyone who thinks the pound is going to move during the day doesn't know what they're talking about.
Rich people who don't know much about the detail but want it fast, cope with things by throwing money at experts until they under perform. A rolling exit poll might not actually be that useful but they will pay for a small advantage.
Yes, they will. And they will get an advantage over waiting for the actual results. But anyone who thinks this will be in time to affect how undecided voters actually vote is mistaken. They are two very different things.
Did anyone say we did? We don't pay much at all into NATO. We are supposed to spend 2% on defence as part of NATO (which we do, once the books have been simmered for a sufficiently long period)
The plaid woman said we pay 2% to NATO.
According to Wiki (with all obvious warnings) we and France both spend 2% of GDP on defence. No one else in Europe does.
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on a particular fire can make matters much worse and cost you your life. If the whole point of colour coding is to make sure you use the right extinguisher then making that coding so small that you can't tell from a reasonable distance what type of extinguisher it is kind of defeats the whole purpose.
Yes. I seriously don't think either the people disagreeing with you, or those who wrote the regulations understand this.
The wrong extinguisher not only can't put out the fire but could make it much much worse.
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on a particular fire can make matters much worse and cost you your life. If the whole point of colour coding is to make sure you use the right extinguisher then making that coding so small that you can't tell from a reasonable distance what type of extinguisher it is kind of defeats the whole purpose.
I think the old colour coding was better but it makes sense to have the same system internationally, ideally worldwide.
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Yup, I agree but you were talking about Europe not the UK. "Leading from the front", why should the UK be leading Europe on defence? I know we have used smoke and mirrors to enable us to pretend we are complying with our NATO treaty obligations but most other countries don't even do that.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on a particular fire can make matters much worse and cost you your life. If the whole point of colour coding is to make sure you use the right extinguisher then making that coding so small that you can't tell from a reasonable distance what type of extinguisher it is kind of defeats the whole purpose.
I think the old colour coding was better but it makes sense to have the same system internationally, ideally worldwide.
If you're going to have a world wide system it would help if it wasn't f'ing stupid.
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Yup, I agree but you were talking about Europe not the UK. "Leading from the front", why should the UK be leading Europe on defence? I know we have used smoke and mirrors to enable us to pretend we are complying with our NATO treaty obligations but most other countries don't even do that.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Yup, I agree but you were talking about Europe not the UK. "Leading from the front", why should the UK be leading Europe on defence? I know we have used smoke and mirrors to enable us to pretend we are complying with our NATO treaty obligations but most other countries don't even do that.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
I wouldn't say we have a responsibility so much as that, in reality, if we don't lead in that area no-one will, and it will be strongly in our interests for someone to do it.
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Yup, I agree but you were talking about Europe not the UK. "Leading from the front", why should the UK be leading Europe on defence? I know we have used smoke and mirrors to enable us to pretend we are complying with our NATO treaty obligations but most other countries don't even do that.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
I wouldn't say we have a responsibility so much as that, in reality, if we don't lead in that area no-one will, and it will be strongly in our interests for someone to do it.
OK so why not go back to previous ideas before we got hung up for seventy years on having a big continental army. We do the maritime side of things with a bit of support from the Cloggies, French and Spanish etc. whilst the French and the Germans can do the army bit with support from the smaller nations. No need for us to lead except in the bit that actually concerns our National defence.
Not that it makes much difference unless European governments, including ours, are prepared to spend sufficient dosh, and there is no sign that they ever will.
To spend enough on defence, and it's our responsibility because if we don't defend ourselves we could get attacked.
Yup, I agree but you were talking about Europe not the UK. "Leading from the front", why should the UK be leading Europe on defence? I know we have used smoke and mirrors to enable us to pretend we are complying with our NATO treaty obligations but most other countries don't even do that.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
I wouldn't say we have a responsibility so much as that, in reality, if we don't lead in that area no-one will, and it will be strongly in our interests for someone to do it.
OK so why not go back to previous ideas before we got hung up for seventy years on having a big continental army. We do the maritime side of things with a bit of support from the Cloggies, French and Spanish etc. whilst the French and the Germans can do the army bit with support from the smaller nations. No need for us to lead except in the bit that actually concerns our National defence.
Not that it makes much difference unless European governments, including ours, are prepared to spend sufficient dosh, and there is no sign that they ever will.
Makes sense to me. You want to be Defence Minister of the European Superstate?
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
I have to do a regular firefighting course as art of my offshore training and no matter how long ago this change was introduced it is still mentioned with scorn by the firefighters on every single course.
I don't know, but I imagine the rationale for this was that the vast majority of the population are not aware of which colour stands for which type of extinguisher, but would immediately recognise red as a fire extinguisher. There is a risk with other colours that a member of the general public (British or foreign) might not even recognise the device to be a fire extinguisher.
There will always be room to dispute with any standardisation decisions, but the general principle of standardisation to facilitate trade and safety still stands. This is the foundation of the single market.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on a particular fire can make matters much worse and cost you your life. If the whole point of colour coding is to make sure you use the right extinguisher then making that coding so small that you can't tell from a reasonable distance what type of extinguisher it is kind of defeats the whole purpose.
Of course it makes sense. How many of the general public are going to have any idea which colour corresponds to which type of extinguisher? The first thing they need to know is that the device is an extinguisher - so it's red. The second thing is if it is the appropriate type - this information is there on closer inspection. Of course, in most situations, the appropriate fire extinguisher will be provided for whatever type of fire is most likely at that location, so it normally will be the correct one.
Otherwise the danger is that, say, a fire breaks out at an electrical installation, a member of the public sees it, and looks for a fire extinguisher. They overlook the blue (or whatever) cylinder provided for electrical fires, don't recognise it as a fire extinguisher, and the fire is left to burn.
I think you are over-estimating the abilities and knowledge of a panicking member of the general public. These EU standards aren't just dreamed up by random people; they are carefully considered in consultation with the relevant industries.
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
I'm tending to the view that leaving or staying is probably not going to make all that much difference to immigration, even though that's what all the shouting is about. The economic imperatives are too strong on all sides.
I'm not much in favour of the anti-democratic nature of the European Council, but I am in favour of bees (or rather I wonder if the environment will suffer if there is a race to the bottom in environmental standards).
Also, I wonder if Britain getting out of the way would allow the Eurozone to get itself together in a proper union..
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
I'm tending to the view that leaving or staying is probably not going to make all that much difference to immigration, even though that's what all the shouting is about. The economic imperatives are too strong on all sides.
I'm not much in favour of the anti-democratic nature of the European Council, but I am in favour of bees (or rather I wonder if the environment will suffer if there is a race to the bottom in environmental standards).
Also, I wonder if Britain getting out of the way would allow the Eurozone to get itself together in a proper union..
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously, and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
Your final sentence is a non-sequitur.
There are plenty of countries outside the EU.
Yes, let them eat cake, and retire to Albania (or some other non-EU country without a points-based immigration system).
got my postal ballot (well done Glasgow city council). It's postage paid too. (I thought I'd have to pay the postage from Japan).
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Leaving E.U means having a fairer immigration system with countries that are not in the E.U.
And that only the UK elite with enough money or qualifications will have the option of settling in the EU countries once freedom of movement is lost. Vote Leave to keep the plebs in their place.
Your final sentence is a non-sequitur.
There are plenty of countries outside the EU.
Yes, let them eat cake, and retire to Albania (or some other non-EU country without a points-based immigration system).
Your racism against Albania is worse than that in the "Taken" movies!
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
I don't think any other supranational institutions have the legislative power to do so. While the EU doesn't have global reach, it can at least deal with regional issues and, by virtue of its size, has a strong voice in global negotiations.
Edit: Anyway, bedtime. You'll have to let me know where you are sometime - I have a very good friend who lives in Osaka.
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
Yes. For bee populations it is banning some of the technologies that could save them.
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
I don't think any other supranational institutions have the legislative power to do so. While the EU doesn't have global reach, it can at least deal with regional issues and, by virtue of its size, has a strong voice in global negotiations.
Edit: Anyway, bedtime. You'll have to let me know where you are sometime - I have a very good friend who lives in Osaka.
Thanks for the discussion.
In Shizuoka-ken. Give me a shout if you're passing through!
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
Yes. For bee populations it is banning some of the technologies that could save them.
I'm no expert on bees, but I guess there is a risk that some decisions influenced by the interests of e.g. French farmers (those that don't rely on bees).
While I find the economic arguments important, my main reason for voting Remain is the need for supranational institutions such as the EU to coordinate action on environmental and other global issues. Unlike many on this forum, I take the warnings of the scientists with regard to concerns such as bee populations and climate change seriously,and I see the EU as a major force for good in tackling these concerns.<\b>
is it doing something that other supranational institutions can't do, though?
Yes. For bee populations it is banning some of the technologies that could save them.
but then I suppose every body is susceptible to lobbying from one interest group or another
Trump giving his biggest broadside yet to Clinton "She's as Guilty as hell. I have the utmost faith in the FBI. And if they don't... If I'm elected, my Attorney General will be looking into it..."
Talk about upping the ante...
Either she goes to jail, or has to win in November... to avoid going to jail...
Argyll and Bute Oban North result last night was Independent Gain From SNP 1st pref. SNP 1055 Ind 722 Con 591 LDem 294 after transfers Ind 1160 SNP 1138
Previous by election in Feb was SNP 1113 Con 609 Ind 608 Green 300 after transfers SNP 1241 Ind 1048
The winning Indie Kieron Green is a member of the Labour Partybut stands as an Independent at local level .
Comments
Wriggle. Wriggle. Wriggle.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/738451339513061376
The audience are more capable.
I don't understand BigW's claim that it's a Labour area and the result shows a big UKIP surge. As noted above, it's been Tory-held, and UKIP's vote more than halved over last year. The Tory vote went down by three quarters and Labour's merely halved.
We have common interest in defence and the transatlantic alliance.
The audience appear completely unimpressed by all of them.
The wrong extinguisher not only can't put out the fire but could make it much much worse.
For example, Germany spends 1.2% of GDP on defence and its forces are hopelessly under-equipped - so much of its stuff just doesn't work for lack of spare parts and a shortage of weapons means its infantry cannot be properly trained (running around with a bit of wood instead of a rifle and shouting "Bang!" from time to time doesn't cut it when training for combat). Our forces are not in good shape but the Germans are just dire, the Frogs not much better and the rest are too small or too outdated to be worth a damn on the modern battlefield.
Why in God's name does the UK have a responsibility to lead from the front?
On a tangent: the Septics have been telling us for decades that they are going to re-orientate to the Asian Sphere and they provide something like 70% of NATO's budget along with a lot of capabilities that no one in Europe has. What happens if the next US president actually does make good on that statement?
Ind 389 Plaid 315 Con 159 Lab 108 LDem 101
Ind 177 Ind 159 Con 140 LDem 107 Lab 87 Plaid 21
Not that it makes much difference unless European governments, including ours, are prepared to spend sufficient dosh, and there is no sign that they ever will.
Now just have to decide which way (and whether) to vote. Canvas me, if you want. (Or advise me that I shouldn't vote on principle as I don't live in the EU...)
Be LEAVE!
Otherwise the danger is that, say, a fire breaks out at an electrical installation, a member of the public sees it, and looks for a fire extinguisher. They overlook the blue (or whatever) cylinder provided for electrical fires, don't recognise it as a fire extinguisher, and the fire is left to burn.
I think you are over-estimating the abilities and knowledge of a panicking member of the general public. These EU standards aren't just dreamed up by random people; they are carefully considered in consultation with the relevant industries.
There are plenty of countries outside the EU.
I'm not much in favour of the anti-democratic nature of the European Council, but I am in favour of bees (or rather I wonder if the environment will suffer if there is a race to the bottom in environmental standards).
Also, I wonder if Britain getting out of the way would allow the Eurozone to get itself together in a proper union..
Edit: Anyway, bedtime. You'll have to let me know where you are sometime - I have a very good friend who lives in Osaka.
In Shizuoka-ken. Give me a shout if you're passing through!
Talk about upping the ante...
Either she goes to jail, or has to win in November... to avoid going to jail...
(^_-)
1st pref. SNP 1055 Ind 722 Con 591 LDem 294
after transfers Ind 1160 SNP 1138
Previous by election in Feb was
SNP 1113 Con 609 Ind 608 Green 300 after transfers SNP 1241 Ind 1048
The winning Indie Kieron Green is a member of the Labour Partybut stands as an Independent at local level .