I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
How? They're asked.
(silence)
A good example is the reappearance of the tedious Roger.
It's a pain and there's nothing we can do about it but hopefully he'll be gone again tomorrow.
Just back from an excellent curry lunch and catching up. Some interesting conversation this afternoon and a special thank you to Mssrs Bedfordshire and Jessop for their earlier comments on trains to the West Country.
Exeter St. Davids station is a mile outside that city for the same reason Cambridge station is about the same distance from Cambridge. The Victorian city fathers of both places didn't want anything to do with the nasty, smelly, modern world.
It's odd how railways have shaped towns. They created some: Swindon and Crewe being two examples: but they moulded others. Cambridge grew southwards to embrace the station. Derby grew eastwards to embrace the troika's station outside town (though in the latter case, there was a canal basin nearby and associated industries).
Incidentally, the decision of the Birmingham and Derby, the North Midland, and the Midland Counties railway to 'share' a station in Derby must have been one of the earliest examples of cooperation between companies. It is very much a shame it did not set a standard for later developments.
I read some years ago that about 90% of settlements in England were in place before the Conquest. Of the other 10% most were probably created by the coming of the railways. I have an 18th century map of Sussex and looking at that the two biggest towns in Mid-Sussex, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, simply did not exist. They grew out of the fact that someone built railway stations to serve more distant existing villages and towns as part of the London to Brighton Line. Which also explains why both places our soulless, dreary and have no proper centre.
Hassocks is the same. Someone decided to build a station and goods yard between the three villages of Hurstpierpoint, Clayton and Keymer (all of which are mentioned in the Domesday Book) and called it Hassocks Gate. A little town grew up around the station in which the oldest buildings are the cottages built to house the station workers and the pub/hotel next to the station (which used to be owned by the railway).
Isn't it planned for HS2 to have new stations, not near existing ones or even city centres? If so I wonder if it will have the same pull factors as its Victorian predecessors.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Before the referendum I tried to use the example of mobile phones, where the EU massively helped European companies gain a world footing in the 1980s and 1990s: examples being Vodafone and Nokia, along with many smaller companies. It was relatively minor and boring things (like reserving frequencies and making GSM a mandatory standard). Yet these small enabling changes, done Europe-wide, had a massive effect. And in a quite unusual turn of events, it was all agreed in much less than a year.
These EU rules and MOUs meant that 'our' standard, GSM could be sold around the world with the full force of Europe behind it, whereas the US lost out due to the battle between competing standards. It was a perfect example where cooperation between EU scientists, organisations, and companies, was embraced into EU law to the advantage of everyone. The reservation of frequencies was a particularly vital move.
And as part of the EU, our scientists, organisations, and companies had our say. The UK government were particularly important in pushing it forwards.
Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
I think big nuclear has had its day. HPC will be one last ignominious hurrah for it but the world will have moved on to battery backed renewable power by then and a much more shock resistant, decentralised grid. Two years ago I was 100% against renewable power on the basis of expense, subsidies and intermittency, all three problems have been solved. HPC is the wrong project but the PM had clearly been bounced into it by the French and Chinese.
One can feel big nuclear getting closer every day...
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
Only if the fanfare that accompanies one camp being closed down by a politician seeking re-election, isn't replaced a few weeks later by a remarkably similar shithole just around the corner.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
How? They're asked.
(silence)
Please don't confuse things JJ.
This world, it must be split into two;
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGErC6QQdoc
Now resisting the temptation to watch the whole live concert video of Tim Minchin and the orchestra. Again.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party is a nest of snakes and social inadequates.
That's a keeper!
Quiz Q: who was it who said: " there are three kinds of Conservative MP, shits, total shits and absolute shits" ?
The actual quote was The Tory party is full of three sorts of people: “shits, bloody shits and fucking shits”
And it was said by Sir Edward Heath.
Then he is slightly misquoted elsewhere on the internet, but it matters not. The quote was from his time as a junior whip and is understood to refer to MPs rather than the wider party.
I have just seen a wonderful item on twitter. It is a picture of the washing instructions on an item of gent's clothing. The instructions go on for a bit talking about temperature, non-chlorine bleaches, correct ironing and so forth and then underneath in bigger letters it says "Or give it to your wife - its her job".
Utterly sexist and all that but it made me howl with laughter.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
You could equally make the case that the EU is the reason a fat chunk of prime British industry has relocated in Eastern Europe, with the benefit of EU tax breaks and incentives. It is easy to see one could become quite bitter at what amounts to British taxpayers money being used to move British jobs to other countries.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Before the referendum I tried to use the example of mobile phones, where the EU massively helped European companies gain a world footing in the 1980s and 1990s: examples being Vodafone and Nokia, along with many smaller companies. It was relatively minor and boring things (like reserving frequencies and making GSM a mandatory standard). Yet these small enabling changes, done Europe-wide, had a massive effect. And in a quite unusual turn of events, it was all agreed in much less than a year.
These EU rules and MOUs meant that 'our' standard, GSM could be sold around the world with the full force of Europe behind it, whereas the US lost out due to the battle between competing standards. It was a perfect example where cooperation between EU scientists, organisations, and companies, was embraced into EU law to the advantage of everyone. The reservation of frequencies was a particularly vital move.
And as part of the EU, our scientists, organisations, and companies had our say. The UK government were particularly important in pushing it forwards.
Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
So, we pay to join a club, and those membership fees go to subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas? And people still wonder why we voted to leave this club?
The other discussion this weekend was whether Article 263 withdrawal would be a viable alternative to Article 50 (which would also have the benefit of irritating the French). Does anyone know how that would work?
I think Article 50 is a nailed-on certainty.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
Thatcher said that Lord Young brought her solutions whilst other Cabinet members brought her problems.
If the EU want to play hardball, fine, we'll just reduce security co-operation. They want to talk big? Lets see them deal with that, the bastards. Your EU employed officials can be ignored, the national governments of the large EU nations where the power is really held will understand the meaning.
As for that bunch at Westminster who don't understand what referendums are about, good luck to Labour in particular, as the areas in the North of England who voted for no, by some margin in many cases, react to attempts to turn that vote on its head.
LOL, will we remove our handful of bathtubs and couple of platoons of infantry.
I think we offer a little more than that being the only EU member of the Five Eyes.
Scotland doesn't though, its got a pitiful capability on intelligence security. Literally s**t, zero contribution, zero capability, its nearly all provided by other parts of the UK for them.
Are you joking? It is absolutely all provided by the UK government; there is a general reservation of "defence", and a specific reservation under Head B of "national security and counter-terrorism". It would be unlawful for Scotland to have any "capability on intelligence security".
(snipped) Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
Because the issues were so complex and so obscure, I eventually went with my gut feeling & voted leave.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that ardent Remain champions will succeed in overturning the result of the Referendum.
What interests me is: what then? Is it expected that everything will return to the previous normal? Both in the UK and for the EU?
The EU people will certainly be encouraged to press ahead with their plans by the UK's about-turn. My guess is that no more referendums will ever be offered - certainly not in countries where they are not legal necessities.
So any discontent will simply be disregarded, as it has been in the UK.
And what then?
(Good evening, everybody)
The Conservatives tear themselves apart and the LibDems sweep to power?
Who cares about any political party?
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
If the EU want to play hardball, fine, we'll just reduce security co-operation. They want to talk big? Lets see them deal with that, the bastards. Your EU employed officials can be ignored, the national governments of the large EU nations where the power is really held will understand the meaning.
As for that bunch at Westminster who don't understand what referendums are about, good luck to Labour in particular, as the areas in the North of England who voted for no, by some margin in many cases, react to attempts to turn that vote on its head.
LOL, will we remove our handful of bathtubs and couple of platoons of infantry.
I think we offer a little more than that being the only EU member of the Five Eyes.
Scotland doesn't though, its got a pitiful capability on intelligence security. Literally s**t, zero contribution, zero capability, its nearly all provided by other parts of the UK for them.
Are you joking? It is absolutely all provided by the UK government; there is a general reservation of "defence", and a specific reservation under Head B of "national security and counter-terrorism". It would be unlawful for Scotland to have any "capability on intelligence security".
Yes I was.
ok sorry - can be hard to tell in the prevailing nuttiness.
The other discussion this weekend was whether Article 263 withdrawal would be a viable alternative to Article 50 (which would also have the benefit of irritating the French). Does anyone know how that would work?
I think Article 50 is a nailed-on certainty.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
May is not so much missing a Willie as an Osborne, a brilliant and vicious tactician who has the leaders back. Hammond is not that man. Not even close. In the same way that the Brown Government was a total shambles until he brought back Mandelson back to run it for him May needs Osborne back in the fold. Gratuitously making an enemy of him was childish and stupid.
Would the minor detail of him despising everything she stood for and wanted to do not have been a slight hinderance ?
No. He is a party man and a patriot who wants the best for this country.
(snipped) Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
Because the issues were so complex and so obscure, I eventually went with my gut feeling & voted leave.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that ardent Remain champions will succeed in overturning the result of the Referendum.
What interests me is: what then? Is it expected that everything will return to the previous normal? Both in the UK and for the EU?
The EU people will certainly be encouraged to press ahead with their plans by the UK's about-turn. My guess is that no more referendums will ever be offered - certainly not in countries where they are not legal necessities.
So any discontent will simply be disregarded, as it has been in the UK.
And what then?
(Good evening, everybody)
The Conservatives tear themselves apart and the LibDems sweep to power?
Who cares about any political party?
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
Given that the world generally is moving towards confederations of nations working together, I would be surprised if it gets brought down (although the future of the Euro is a more open question). Best case we will be Canada to the US, adopting most of the EU standards and sticking as close to it as we can.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Before the referendum I tried to use the example of mobile phones, where the EU massively helped European companies gain a world footing in the 1980s and 1990s: examples being Vodafone and Nokia, along with many smaller companies. It was relatively minor and boring things (like reserving frequencies and making GSM a mandatory standard). Yet these small enabling changes, done Europe-wide, had a massive effect. And in a quite unusual turn of events, it was all agreed in much less than a year.
These EU rules and MOUs meant that 'our' standard, GSM could be sold around the world with the full force of Europe behind it, whereas the US lost out due to the battle between competing standards. It was a perfect example where cooperation between EU scientists, organisations, and companies, was embraced into EU law to the advantage of everyone. The reservation of frequencies was a particularly vital move.
And as part of the EU, our scientists, organisations, and companies had our say. The UK government were particularly important in pushing it forwards.
snip
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
So, we pay to join a club, and those membership fees go to subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas? And people still wonder why we voted to leave this club?
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
Whoa - Reports emerging of what was very nearly a massive crash between two planes in Shanghai last week. A320 taking off missed a larger A330 on the runway by 19 metres - vertically!
The Conservative Parliamentary Party is a nest of snakes and social inadequates.
That's a keeper!
Quiz Q: who was it who said: " there are three kinds of Conservative MP, shits, total shits and absolute shits" ?
The actual quote was The Tory party is full of three sorts of people: “shits, bloody shits and fucking shits”
And it was said by Sir Edward Heath.
Then he is slightly misquoted elsewhere on the internet, but it matters not. [snip]
Interesting that the mistake has to be someone else's fault, not yours - even in something as trivial as a misquote.
It was a cut and paste, and I don't really see the interest. At all. But you are welcome to go looking for it if you wish. I changed "were" to "are" as the article reported that he "said there were...."
The other discussion this weekend was whether Article 263 withdrawal would be a viable alternative to Article 50 (which would also have the benefit of irritating the French). Does anyone know how that would work?
I think Article 50 is a nailed-on certainty.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
Just back from an excellent curry lunch and catching up. Some interesting conversation this afternoon and a special thank you to Mssrs Bedfordshire and Jessop for their earlier comments on trains to the West Country.
Exeter St. Davids station is a mile outside that city for the same reason Cambridge station is about the same distance from Cambridge. The Victorian city fathers of both places didn't want anything to do with the nasty, smelly, modern world.
It's odd how railways have shaped towns. They created some: Swindon and Crewe being two examples: but they moulded others. Cambridge grew southwards to embrace the station. Derby grew eastwards to embrace the troika's station outside town (though in the latter case, there was a canal basin nearby and associated industries).
Incidentally, the decision of the Birmingham and Derby, the North Midland, and the Midland Counties railway to 'share' a station in Derby must have been one of the earliest examples of cooperation between companies. It is very much a shame it did not set a standard for later developments.
I read some years ago that about 90% of settlements in England were in place before the Conquest. Of the other 10% most were probably created by the coming of the railways. I have an 18th century map of Sussex and looking at that the two biggest towns in Mid-Sussex, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, simply did not exist. They grew out of the fact that someone built railway stations to serve more distant existing villages and towns as part of the London to Brighton Line. Which also explains why both places our soulless, dreary and have no proper centre.
Hassocks is the same. Someone decided to build a station and goods yard between the three villages of Hurstpierpoint, Clayton and Keymer (all of which are mentioned in the Domesday Book) and called it Hassocks Gate. A little town grew up around the station in which the oldest buildings are the cottages built to house the station workers and the pub/hotel next to the station (which used to be owned by the railway).
Isn't it planned for HS2 to have new stations, not near existing ones or even city centres? If so I wonder if it will have the same pull factors as its Victorian predecessors.
The interesting one is Crewe. The town was built around what became a junction of six lines; as a rough midpoint between Birmingham and Liverpool (for that railway line). The works were built there, and the town grew up mainly to the north and west of the station.
However it is planned for HS2's station to be a mile or so south of the current station. I haven't looked at the maps to see how well this will interoperate with the lines coming in from the southwest or southeast, but it will be interesting to see how this move south will alter the town.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Before the referendum I tried to use the example of mobile phones, where the EU massively helped European companies gain a world footing in the 1980s and 1990s: examples being Vodafone and Nokia, along with many smaller companies. It was relatively minor and boring things (like reserving frequencies and making GSM a mandatory standard). Yet these small enabling changes, done Europe-wide, had a massive effect. And in a quite unusual turn of events, it was all agreed in much less than a year.
These EU rules and MOUs meant that 'our' standard, GSM could be sold around the world with the full force of Europe behind it, whereas the US lost out due to the battle between competing standards. It was a perfect example where cooperation between EU scientists, organisations, and companies, was embraced into EU law to the advantage of everyone. The reservation of frequencies was a particularly vital move.
And as part of the EU, our scientists, organisations, and companies had our say. The UK government were particularly important in pushing it forwards.
snip
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
So, we pay to join a club, and those membership fees go to subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas? And people still wonder why we voted to leave this club?
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
It shouldnt be a surprise to people on this board, quite a lot of voters who expected to be a trade area and largely don't pay much attention to politics and suddenly found during the referendum campaign that their taxes were being used to help make them unemployed are understandably less impressed.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
Whoa - Reports emerging of what was very nearly a massive crash between two planes in Shanghai last week. A320 taking off missed a larger A330 on the runway by 19 metres - vertically!
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
Providing cheap loans comes close enough to 'subsidising' something without twisting the word to snapping point.
This happened, for example, when the EU helped move Ford production from Southampton to Turkey in 2012.
(snipped) Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
Because the issues were so complex and so obscure, I eventually went with my gut feeling & voted leave.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that ardent Remain champions will succeed in overturning the result of the Referendum.
What interests me is: what then? Is it expected that everything will return to the previous normal? Both in the UK and for the EU?
The EU people will certainly be encouraged to press ahead with their plans by the UK's about-turn. My guess is that no more referendums will ever be offered - certainly not in countries where they are not legal necessities.
So any discontent will simply be disregarded, as it has been in the UK.
And what then?
(Good evening, everybody)
I'm afraid you have it all to come. Traveling through Europe and seeing the 'EU PASSPORTS AND OTHERS' is a very depressing sight. Knowing that in a few months we will no longer be sailing through the white on blue with the EU passengers but queuing up for hours with endless lines of South Koreans.
If this doesn't make you reconsider your vote wait till you try changing your basket currency whose value by then will be somewhere between the Somali Lira and the Monglolian Yak.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Before the referendum I tried to use the example of mobile phones, where the EU massively helped European companies gain a world footing in the 1980s and 1990s: examples being Vodafone and Nokia, along with many smaller companies. It was relatively minor and boring things (like reserving frequencies and making GSM a mandatory standard). Yet these small enabling changes, done Europe-wide, had a massive effect. And in a quite unusual turn of events, it was all agreed in much less than a year.
snip
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
So, we pay to join a club, and those membership fees go to subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas? And people still wonder why we voted to leave this club?
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
It shouldnt be a surprise to people on this board, quite a lot of voters who expected to be a trade area and largely don't pay much attention to politics and suddenly found during the referendum campaign that their taxes were being used to help make them unemployed are understandably less impressed.
Again, that would be a good point if the EU were specifically subsidising JLR plants in Slovakia, but no one is claiming that. It is the mere fact of Slovakia being in the EU (the "trade area" in your terms) which makes it attractive to JLR.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
But the Brexiteers keep telling us the EU is falling apart, and we had to get out before it collapsed...
Predictions of the future are difficult, as many of those who engage in betting will affirm.
If the EU does fall apart, that is likely to involve hardship for a great many people.
It may even be that the universal solution to the EU's problems (more Europe) will result in significant oppression of European peoples in order to keep the failing project on life support.
But suppose the EU goes from strength to strength - economically & politically. I still ask: what then?
The wealthy 'regions' such as ourselves & Germany & France etc will be transferring funds to the poorer 'regions' such as Turkey etc.
Consider the resentment revealed in London by those whom London supports financially swaying the vote to Leave. Then magnify that ill-feeling by as many times as you think necessary for Londoners to resent funding the Mediterranean regions.
You are, by implication, postulating that places like London will be much happier about transferring their hard-earned to Rumania or Turkey than they are about transferring it to South-West England or Wales.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
The other discussion this weekend was whether Article 263 withdrawal would be a viable alternative to Article 50 (which would also have the benefit of irritating the French). Does anyone know how that would work?
I think Article 50 is a nailed-on certainty.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
It is actually illegal for the EU to seek to make us an example and punish us uniquely.
Therefore, I do not expect us to go crashing out with no deal. But there is a risk of a poor deal.
The idea of Article 263 (I've read it now) is if they won't give us a deal of Article 50. It seems to be the equivalent of judicial review - of every decision that the EU makes - to gum up the works until they give us a deal.
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
But the Brexiteers keep telling us the EU is falling apart, and we had to get out before it collapsed...
Predictions of the future are difficult, as many of those who engage in betting will affirm.
If the EU does fall apart, that is likely to involve hardship for a great many people.
It may even be that the universal solution to the EU's problems (more Europe) will result in significant oppression of European peoples in order to keep the failing project on life support.
But suppose the EU goes from strength to strength - economically & politically. I still ask: what then?
The wealthy 'regions' such as ourselves & Germany & France etc will be transferring funds to the poorer 'regions' such as Turkey etc.
Consider the resentment revealed in London by those whom London supports financially swaying the vote to Leave. Then magnify that ill-feeling by as many times as you think necessary for Londoners to resent funding the Mediterranean regions.
You are, by implication, postulating that places like London will be much happier about transferring their hard-earned to Rumania or Turkey than they are about transferring it to South-West England or Wales.
Will they really? I can't see it, myself.
If - as reported (essentially as a rumour based on unattributed briefing) by Newsnight last week, the compromise between an EU demand for us to make a budget contribution and a UK reluctance to be seen to do so is that we make payments instead into a "reconstruction fund" directed at Eastern Europe, that would become overt, even after Brexit.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
The other discussion this weekend was whether Article 263 withdrawal would be a viable alternative to Article 50 (which would also have the benefit of irritating the French). Does anyone know how that would work?
I think Article 50 is a nailed-on certainty.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
It is actually illegal for the EU to seek to make us an example and punish us uniquely.
Therefore, I do not expect us to go crashing out with no deal. But there is a risk of a poor deal.
The idea of Article 263 (I've read it now) is if they won't give us a deal of Article 50. It seems to be the equivalent of judicial review - of every decision that the EU makes - to gum up the works until they give us a deal.
But two years after A50 we would lose the right to employ A263? And so be out with no deal? And in the meantime it isn't a strategy that would make a deal easier.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
How? They're asked.
(silence)
You know what: the third type are by far the happiest.
Whoa - Reports emerging of what was very nearly a massive crash between two planes in Shanghai last week. A320 taking off missed a larger A330 on the runway by 19 metres - vertically!
I bet there were screams on the plane that was taxiing.
I think I'd have had a heart attack! The AVHerald video wasn't some TV dramatisation, it was from the black box data, literally a couple of seconds from disaster.
(snipped) Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
Because the issues were so complex and so obscure, I eventually went with my gut feeling & voted leave.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that ardent Remain champions will succeed in overturning the result of the Referendum.
What interests me is: what then? Is it expected that everything will return to the previous normal? Both in the UK and for the EU?
The EU people will certainly be encouraged to press ahead with their plans by the UK's about-turn. My guess is that no more referendums will ever be offered - certainly not in countries where they are not legal necessities.
So any discontent will simply be disregarded, as it has been in the UK.
And what then?
(Good evening, everybody)
The Conservatives tear themselves apart and the LibDems sweep to power?
Who cares about any political party?
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
Given that the world generally is moving towards confederations of nations working together, I would be surprised if it gets brought down (although the future of the Euro is a more open question). Best case we will be Canada to the US, adopting most of the EU standards and sticking as close to it as we can.
'Nations working together' is not what the EU is aiming for. That, as I understand it, is what the UK would like the EU to be.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
How? They're asked.
(silence)
You know what: the third type are by far the happiest.
I'm firmly in that group.
Nobody truly in that group takes any interest in politics.
(snipped) Sadly, some Europhobes on here argued against the point, denying that the EU had anything to do with those companies' success, despite all the evidence otherwise. I daresay some of them will be doing so now.
This blindness to fact by some Europhobes was the most annoying thing about the referendum to me: the fact that their religion could not stand *any* contention that there might be *any* good in the EU, whatever the evidence.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
Because the issues were so complex and so obscure, I eventually went with my gut feeling & voted leave.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that ardent Remain champions will succeed in overturning the result of the Referendum.
What interests me is: what then? Is it expected that everything will return to the previous normal? Both in the UK and for the EU?
The EU people will certainly be encouraged to press ahead with their plans by the UK's about-turn. My guess is that no more referendums will ever be offered - certainly not in countries where they are not legal necessities.
So any discontent will simply be disregarded, as it has been in the UK.
And what then?
(Good evening, everybody)
I'm afraid you have it all to come. Traveling through Europe and seeing the 'EU PASSPORTS AND OTHERS' is a very depressing sight. Knowing that in a few months we will no longer be sailing through the white on blue with the EU passengers but queuing up for hours with endless lines of South Koreans.
If this doesn't make you reconsider your vote wait till you try changing your basket currency whose value by then will be somewhere between the Somali Lira and the Monglolian Yak.
Humbly I have to acknowledge that your examples do not resonate with me, as my very few visits abroad were prior to the UK joining the EU.
Anyone been on the doorsteps in Whitney and has any info to give?
Yes - it's spelt Witney.
- Nice to see you posting again MrsB, hope you are well and all that.
Just busy - I lurk a bit at the weekends. Otherwise fine. Have been to Witney 3 times in the campaign and will be there polling day. A lot of nice villages and pleasant people, good pubs - and a lot of Lib Dem posters.
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
But the Brexiteers keep telling us the EU is falling apart, and we had to get out before it collapsed...
Predictions of the future are difficult, as many of those who engage in betting will affirm.
If the EU does fall apart, that is likely to involve hardship for a great many people.
It may even be that the universal solution to the EU's problems (more Europe) will result in significant oppression of European peoples in order to keep the failing project on life support.
But suppose the EU goes from strength to strength - economically & politically. I still ask: what then?
The wealthy 'regions' such as ourselves & Germany & France etc will be transferring funds to the poorer 'regions' such as Turkey etc.
Consider the resentment revealed in London by those whom London supports financially swaying the vote to Leave. Then magnify that ill-feeling by as many times as you think necessary for Londoners to resent funding the Mediterranean regions.
You are, by implication, postulating that places like London will be much happier about transferring their hard-earned to Rumania or Turkey than they are about transferring it to South-West England or Wales.
Will they really? I can't see it, myself.
If - as reported (essentially as a rumour based on unattributed briefing) by Newsnight last week, the compromise between an EU demand for us to make a budget contribution and a UK reluctance to be seen to do so is that we make payments instead into a "reconstruction fund" directed at Eastern Europe, that would become overt, even after Brexit.
Sir Humphrey would rebrand EU contributions as overseas aid.
They claim we pay in, we get £350m a week in savings by merging the aid budget/EU contributions into a single pot capped at 0.7% of GDP.
Our quid pro quo to non-EU aid recipients is abolishing tariffs on third world economies to promote free trade in place of aid.
'Every one's a winner babe, that's the truth,' Errol Brown.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
The one about the Pope does (but no link because very NSFW!).
I once, without realising, started saying out loud on the train
'If you really loved me, you'd let me video you while you wee'
You just wrote that down!!
Actually, Minchin did once write a clean (ish) ditty for TV, with a few cultural references and TSE-subtle innuendos that managed to get on early-evening broadcasts.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
Providing cheap loans comes close enough to 'subsidising' something without twisting the word to snapping point.
This happened, for example, when the EU helped move Ford production from Southampton to Turkey in 2012.
It was contentious whether the loan and the Turkey factory were related.
I note that JLR received a loan of £340m in 2010 (in the days when £340m was a lot of money) "to finance development of micro and full hybrid drive trains and research into more energy efficient car bodies for the premium car segment by Jaguar Land Rover". There is scope for suggesting that £340m is spookily close to the cost of a Slovakian car factory. But either way, the point stands: purely general EU investment into Slovakia's infrastructure, plus the mere fact of its membership, will tend to make it a more attractive place to relocate business to. This is not a controversial point, it's just saying that there are roundabouts as well as swings involved in EU membership, in response to ther initial point that EU membership boosted the mobile phone industry here.
Couple of dates in diary on the Foreign Affairs front in the US.
October 18-20th: start of main ground offensive on Mosul, IS strong point in Iraq and significant embarrassment to any player against it. Obama really wants a nice foreign policy ender to his presidency to stand at a lectern. Since his hilarious plans to bring peace to Syria via not offending Russia have gone west this may have to do just before the new president is elected.
Week beginning 17th October. The Red Sea. As the Iranians ping anti-ship missiles at US warships off the coast of Yemen, the president has been remarkably quiet about it. They will, however, have to take further action since a burst of cruise missiles hasn't done it. This might well gain more prominence in a way that the White House wishes not to talk about.
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
But the Brexiteers keep telling us the EU is falling apart, and we had to get out before it collapsed...
Predictions of the future are difficult, as many of those who engage in betting will affirm.
If the EU does fall apart, that is likely to involve hardship for a great many people.
It may even be that the universal solution to the EU's problems (more Europe) will result in significant oppression of European peoples in order to keep the failing project on life support.
But suppose the EU goes from strength to strength - economically & politically. I still ask: what then?
The wealthy 'regions' such as ourselves & Germany & France etc will be transferring funds to the poorer 'regions' such as Turkey etc.
Consider the resentment revealed in London by those whom London supports financially swaying the vote to Leave. Then magnify that ill-feeling by as many times as you think necessary for Londoners to resent funding the Mediterranean regions.
You are, by implication, postulating that places like London will be much happier about transferring their hard-earned to Rumania or Turkey than they are about transferring it to South-West England or Wales.
Will they really? I can't see it, myself.
If - as reported (essentially as a rumour based on unattributed briefing) by Newsnight last week, the compromise between an EU demand for us to make a budget contribution and a UK reluctance to be seen to do so is that we make payments instead into a "reconstruction fund" directed at Eastern Europe, that would become overt, even after Brexit.
Sir Humphrey would rebrand EU contributions as overseas aid.
They claim we pay in, we get £350m a week in savings by merging the aid budget/EU contributions into a single pot capped at 0.7% of GDP.
Our quid pro quo to non-EU aid recipients is abolishing tariffs on third world economies to promote free trade in place of aid.
'Every one's a winner babe, that's the truth,' Errol Brown.
Very clever!
Although a chunk of our EU contribution (representing our share of the EU's aid) is already counted towards our 0.7% foreign aid commitment, so I don't think we would get the full £350m saving.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
Couple of dates in diary on the Foreign Affairs front in the US.
October 18-20th: start of main ground offensive on Mosul, IS strong point in Iraq and significant embarrassment to any player against it. Obama really wants a nice foreign policy ender to his presidency to stand at a lectern. Since his hilarious plans to bring peace to Syria via not offending Russia have gone west this may have to do just before the new president is elected.
Week beginning 17th October. The Red Sea. As the Iranians ping anti-ship missiles at US warships off the coast of Yemen, the president has been remarkably quiet about it. They will, however, have to take further action since a burst of cruise missiles hasn't done it. This might well gain more prominence in a way that the White House wishes not to talk about.
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
The one about the Pope does (but no link because very NSFW!).
I once, without realising, started saying out loud on the train
'If you really loved me, you'd let me video you while you wee'
You just wrote that down!!
Actually, Minchin did once write a clean (ish) ditty for TV, with a few cultural references and TSE-subtle innuendos that managed to get on early-evening broadcasts.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
Providing cheap loans comes close enough to 'subsidising' something without twisting the word to snapping point.
This happened, for example, when the EU helped move Ford production from Southampton to Turkey in 2012.
It was contentious whether the loan and the Turkey factory were related.
I note that JLR received a loan of £340m in 2010 (in the days when £340m was a lot of money) "to finance development of micro and full hybrid drive trains and research into more energy efficient car bodies for the premium car segment by Jaguar Land Rover". There is scope for suggesting that £340m is spookily close to the cost of a Slovakian car factory. But either way, the point stands: purely general EU investment into Slovakia's infrastructure, plus the mere fact of its membership, will tend to make it a more attractive place to relocate business to. This is not a controversial point, it's just saying that there are roundabouts as well as swings involved in EU membership, in response to ther initial point that EU membership boosted the mobile phone industry here.
I like it when someone says "its contentious that payment X is connected to Y".
I've actually used this is in business - "So, we will block/stop payment X and Y will happen anyway?".
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
You'd rather Nokia hadn't had the success they had? It's a view, I suppose.
As for Vodafone, I'll take your inability to spell their name as a sign of the depth of your knowledge about them.
And as predicted, one of our native Europhobes has come up with the: "Nothing much to do with the EU" line, when it evidently was, for the reasons I gave before.
There's a great section in the book 'Backroom Boys' about how Racal started Vodafone, and how the company developed. For instance, I did not know that the initial mobile rollout was along the triangle of M1, M5 and M4 motorways.
If you are to believe the polls, Trump seems to be shedding a fair slice of the over 60s GOP voter base. If you take the logic that older people proportionately turn out more than many younger voters then he really is going to find that hard to deal with.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
You'd rather Nokia hadn't had the success they had? It's a view, I suppose.
As for Vodafone, I'll take your inability to spell their name as a sign of the depth of your knowledge about them.
And as predicted, one of our native Europhobes has come up with the: "Nothing much to do with the EU" line, when it evidently was, for the reasons I gave before.
There's a great section in the book 'Backroom Boys' about how Racal started Vodafone, and how the company developed. For instance, I did not know that the initial mobile rollout was along the triangle of M1, M5 and M4 motorways.
Nokia (founded in 1865) developed its first mobile phone in 1987. Finland joined the EU in 1995. So how did the EU help Nokia develop the mobile phone?
I have various personal maxims. One of them is that everyone can be divided into those who are problem solvers and those who are the problems. It is always more fun to be the problem than to be a problem solver. Theresa May is finding that out now.
There's surely a relevant third type: the ignorer of problems. Everything'll be okay. We'll muddle through. It'll be better tomorrow.
The one about the Pope does (but no link because very NSFW!).
I once, without realising, started saying out loud on the train
'If you really loved me, you'd let me video you while you wee'
You just wrote that down!!
Actually, Minchin did once write a clean (ish) ditty for TV, with a few cultural references and TSE-subtle innuendos that managed to get on early-evening broadcasts.
I saw him live a few years ago and his songs do get into your head.
Yes, his missus must have been so happy with that song! Genius lyrics that stay in the mind for a long time. I've his Royal Albert Hall orchestra performance on DVD, always good when two hours of laughing out loud is needed!
If you are to believe the polls, Trump seems to be shedding a fair slice of the over 60s GOP voter base. If you take the logic that older people proportionately turn out more than many younger voters then he really is going to find that hard to deal with.
I still find Mike Pence's position curious.
My view is that Pence is running for 2020, ue knows Trump is fubar and is getting his name out for next tine. People in the Trump campaign can be split into True believers, People who think their only shot at power is on Trump's coat tails and finally what I term " showing how good I can be even in the middle of a train wreck" Pence is in the latter group.
John sergeant knows. I wonder whether Balls too will have to go voluntarily.
Ed seems to have found a life post politics, and good for him. Can't be long before he finds his equivalent of lary jackets and railways a la Portillo ( whose travels are rather diverting for an hour - I imagine grown up interailing but with boutique hotels overlooking Italian lakes, rather than crashing out in a second class rail carriage overnight).
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
Perhaps you should read it.
Does the book mention the attempt C&W made to buy it for £1.5bn around 1990? I sat in on a meeting at which the then C&W CEO and C&W Finance Diector proudly boasted about not bidding £100m more and instead bought a PABX distributor in the UK instead. Just about the stupidest business decision. But if spelling's your thing? PS the CEO's name was Gordon and the Fin Director was Rod. All on first name terms but they ignored telecoms "last mile problem" which mobile would fix.
You'd rather Nokia hadn't had the success they had? It's a view, I suppose.
As for Vodafone, I'll take your inability to spell their name as a sign of the depth of your knowledge about them.
And as predicted, one of our native Europhobes has come up with the: "Nothing much to do with the EU" line, when it evidently was, for the reasons I gave before.
There's a great section in the book 'Backroom Boys' about how Racal started Vodafone, and how the company developed. For instance, I did not know that the initial mobile rollout was along the triangle of M1, M5 and M4 motorways.
Nokia (founded in 1865) developed its first mobile phone in 1987. Finland joined the EU in 1995. So how did the EU help Nokia develop the mobile phone?
Read my previous posts. But to repeat:
By creating an environment where mobile phones could be sold throughout Europe, and making one standard that had to be used by all those countries. In particular, by reserving the frequencies required.
It created a massive market that European companies were already well equipped to exploit because many of them had had input into those standards.
It should be contrasted with the situation in the US, where companies were developing competing standards and some states used frequencies for different purposes. This meant that your phone that worked in New York may not work in Buffalo. It really hindered the US tech sector wrt early mobile phones.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
Perhaps you should read it.
Does the book mention the attempt C&W made to buy it for £1.5bn around 1990? I sat in on a meeting at which the then C&W CEO and C&W Finance Diector proudly boasted about not bidding £100m more and instead bought a PABX distributor in the UK instead. Just about the stupidest business decision. But if spelling's your thing? PS the CEO's name was Gordon and the Fin Director was Rod. All on first name terms but they ignored telecoms "last mile problem" which mobile would fix.
I don't care if you sat in on a meeting or not; you are not actually challenging the facts I put forward.
Lucky for the EU that the Finns had paved the way so that Europe could adopt the de facto standard that Nokia had built into its network four years before Finland joined the EU.
'I'm afraid you have it all to come. Traveling through Europe and seeing the 'EU PASSPORTS AND OTHERS' is a very depressing sight. Knowing that in a few months we will no longer be sailing through the white on blue with the EU passengers but queuing up for hours with endless lines of South Koreans.
If this doesn't make you reconsider your vote wait till you try changing your basket currency whose value by then will be somewhere between the Somali Lira and the Monglolian Yak. '
I must have missed the 'sailing through' bit as EU PASSPORTS line is usually as slow as 'OTHERS'
US,Canadian & Australian nationals seem to manage the 'Others'well enough and don't seem to have the same hang ups as you queuing with 'South Koreans'.
Currencies go up & down, after the 2007 Brown economic collapse Sterling was virtually at parity with the euro, when the mess was sorted out Sterling appreciated. Were you really expecting Sterling to remain stable during the two year exit process ?Meanwhile our exporters are enjoying a bonanza.
Not quite sure what to make of the topic stories. The relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor has weakened most British Governments since 1945. The Chancellor can either be a technocrat financier (Barber, Lawson) or a political Chancellor with one eye on the main prize (Brown, Osborne). If the latter, the political conflict with the Prime Minister especially if the Prime Minister becomes unpopular can be acute.
If Hammond sees himself as the cheerleader for the "soft" version of Brexit, fine. It's an option not without considerable support in the country and even within the Conservative Party. Outside the Cabinet, he becomes a Heseltine-type figure though without the charisma readsy to step in if or when May's strategy founders.
The problem is A50 is going to happen and the line from the EU (though a lot of it is as much about pre-negotiation posturing for domestic consumption much as here) seems to be that Single Market without Freedom of Movement is a non starter. I suspect there's more wiggle room in that statement than appears to be the case.
That is kind of the point I was making, except that "subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas" is contentious: the EU does not in a strict sense "subsidise" the move. But it shouldn't cause surprise that if we are one of the wealthiest members of the club, and it is an express aim of the club to help out poorer members, that this sort of thing happens.
On that earlier point about how the Eu gave us a world beating mobile phone business, where is the EU in mobile phone production these days? Nokia = joke owned by Microsoft.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
You'd rather Nokia hadn't had the success they had? It's a view, I suppose.
As for Vodafone, I'll take your inability to spell their name as a sign of the depth of your knowledge about them.
And as predicted, one of our native Europhobes has come up with the: "Nothing much to do with the EU" line, when it evidently was, for the reasons I gave before.
There's a great section in the book 'Backroom Boys' about how Racal started Vodafone, and how the company developed. For instance, I did not know that the initial mobile rollout was along the triangle of M1, M5 and M4 motorways.
Nokia (founded in 1865) developed its first mobile phone in 1987. Finland joined the EU in 1995. So how did the EU help Nokia develop the mobile phone?
Lucky for the EU that the Finns had paved the way so that Europe could adopt the de facto standard that Nokia had built into its network four years before Finland joined the EU.
I suggest you read up more on it. Here are some useful links:
Turn out could be low (favours the Party with the enthusiasts?)
Lib Dems have been focusing on Labour's best place Witney. Oodles of window banners and garden posters. Loads of Lib Dems on the streets of Witney today. They must have read my post last week I like to think
Some anecdotal evidence of Remain Tories backing Lib Dems actively.
The (numerous) LD leaflets are not in yellow, but red or blue depending on the subject (cute).
Turn out could be low (favours the Party with the enthusiasts?)
Lib Dems have been focusing on Labour's best place Witney. Oodles of window banners and garden posters. Loads of Lib Dems on the streets of Witney today. They must have read my post last week I like to think
Some anecdotal evidence of Remain Tories backing Lib Dems actively.
The (numerous) LD leaflets are not in yellow, but red or blue depending on the subject (cute).
Evening @stodge pity there's no such thing as soft Brexit.
Hello Geoff.
I must confess I don't like the terminology either but it's become almost the lingua franca of the debate.
I imagine Hammond is tilting for a pro-City deal which preserves as much Single Market access (financial passporting) as possible. It's probably fair to say the City has a different take on migration and freedom of movement than much of the rest of the UK
Walk along King William Street, Cornhill or Leadenhall Street on a weekday lunchtime and you hear some English but a lot of French, German and Italian spoken. For the European financial professional, London is the place to be.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Turn out could be low (favours the Party with the enthusiasts?)
Lib Dems have been focusing on Labour's best place Witney. Oodles of window banners and garden posters. Loads of Lib Dems on the streets of Witney today. They must have read my post last week I like to think
Some anecdotal evidence of Remain Tories backing Lib Dems actively.
The (numerous) LD leaflets are not in yellow, but red or blue depending on the subject (cute).
I really would love to see the LDs do it. It might just remind TMay that the majority of people in this country do not support UKIP. That they were so far behind in 2015 would make a victory all the more resonant. Go the yellow peril!
Evening @stodge pity there's no such thing as soft Brexit.
Hello Geoff.
I must confess I don't like the terminology either but it's become almost the lingua franca of the debate.
I imagine Hammond is tilting for a pro-City deal which preserves as much Single Market access (financial passporting) as possible. It's probably fair to say the City has a different take on migration and freedom of movement than much of the rest of the UK
Walk along King William Street, Cornhill or Leadenhall Street on a weekday lunchtime and you hear some English but a lot of French, German and Italian spoken. For the European financial professional, London is the place to be.
Walk along any of those streets and all you see are people rushing to Pret for an Italian Chicken Salad. How you manage to hear the language spoken is anyone's guess.
Comments
It's a pain and there's nothing we can do about it but hopefully he'll be gone again tomorrow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3841644/The-Great-Wall-Calais-Work-begins-controversial-2-5m-UK-funded-13ft-high-barrier-stop-migrants-sneaking-lorries-crossing-Channel.html
Hassocks is the same. Someone decided to build a station and goods yard between the three villages of Hurstpierpoint, Clayton and Keymer (all of which are mentioned in the Domesday Book) and called it Hassocks Gate. A little town grew up around the station in which the oldest buildings are the cottages built to house the station workers and the pub/hotel next to the station (which used to be owned by the railway).
Isn't it planned for HS2 to have new stations, not near existing ones or even city centres? If so I wonder if it will have the same pull factors as its Victorian predecessors.
OTOH if you were Slovakian, you could make a forceful case for the EU for having enabled Slovakia to steal Jaguar Land Rover business from the UK: https://www.ft.com/content/4ec6972c-73db-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1711jiiRtM
And it was said by Sir Edward Heath.
Utterly sexist and all that but it made me howl with laughter.
Edit: @Indigo, snap!
Clinton 36 .. Trump 46
Via 538.
But worth not forgetting Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which stipulates that the EU “shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/6-article-8.html
It is actually illegal for the EU to seek to make us an example and punish us uniquely.
Therefore, I do not expect us to go crashing out with no deal. But there is a risk of a poor deal.
Thatcher said that Lord Young brought her solutions whilst other Cabinet members brought her problems.
I'm more concerned for the future generations who will have to either knuckle down to the over-weening EU or take up arms to bring it down.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787699930718695425
http://avherald.com/h?article=49f37b96&opt=0
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/585790-almost-repeat-tenerife-shanghai.html
However it is planned for HS2's station to be a mile or so south of the current station. I haven't looked at the maps to see how well this will interoperate with the lines coming in from the southwest or southeast, but it will be interesting to see how this move south will alter the town.
This happened, for example, when the EU helped move Ford production from Southampton to Turkey in 2012.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10020273.Ford_s___80m_EU_loan_to_boost_Turkey_factory___and_close_ours/
If this doesn't make you reconsider your vote wait till you try changing your basket currency whose value by then will be somewhere between the Somali Lira and the Monglolian Yak.
If the EU does fall apart, that is likely to involve hardship for a great many people.
It may even be that the universal solution to the EU's problems (more Europe) will result in significant oppression of European peoples in order to keep the failing project on life support.
But suppose the EU goes from strength to strength - economically & politically. I still ask: what then?
The wealthy 'regions' such as ourselves & Germany & France etc will be transferring funds to the poorer 'regions' such as Turkey etc.
Consider the resentment revealed in London by those whom London supports financially swaying the vote to Leave. Then magnify that ill-feeling by as many times as you think necessary for Londoners to resent funding the Mediterranean regions.
You are, by implication, postulating that places like London will be much happier about transferring their hard-earned to Rumania or Turkey than they are about transferring it to South-West England or Wales.
Will they really? I can't see it, myself.
'If you really loved me, you'd let me video you while you wee'
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/301110-trump-focuses-on-four-key-states
They claim we pay in, we get £350m a week in savings by merging the aid budget/EU contributions into a single pot capped at 0.7% of GDP.
Our quid pro quo to non-EU aid recipients is abolishing tariffs on third world economies to promote free trade in place of aid.
'Every one's a winner babe, that's the truth,' Errol Brown.
Actually, Minchin did once write a clean (ish) ditty for TV, with a few cultural references and TSE-subtle innuendos that managed to get on early-evening broadcasts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQorn0pupw
I note that JLR received a loan of £340m in 2010 (in the days when £340m was a lot of money) "to finance development of micro and full hybrid drive trains and research into more energy efficient car bodies for the premium car segment by Jaguar Land Rover". There is scope for suggesting that £340m is spookily close to the cost of a Slovakian car factory. But either way, the point stands: purely general EU investment into Slovakia's infrastructure, plus the mere fact of its membership, will tend to make it a more attractive place to relocate business to. This is not a controversial point, it's just saying that there are roundabouts as well as swings involved in EU membership, in response to ther initial point that EU membership boosted the mobile phone industry here.
October 18-20th: start of main ground offensive on Mosul, IS strong point in Iraq and significant embarrassment to any player against it. Obama really wants a nice foreign policy ender to his presidency to stand at a lectern. Since his hilarious plans to bring peace to Syria via not offending Russia have gone west this may have to do just before the new president is elected.
Week beginning 17th October. The Red Sea. As the Iranians ping anti-ship missiles at US warships off the coast of Yemen, the president has been remarkably quiet about it. They will, however, have to take further action since a burst of cruise missiles hasn't done it. This might well gain more prominence in a way that the White House wishes not to talk about.
Although a chunk of our EU contribution (representing our share of the EU's aid) is already counted towards our 0.7% foreign aid commitment, so I don't think we would get the full £350m saving.
Regarding Vodaphone they built their business out of a UK Govt military contract and the knowledge they developed in producing that. Luckily they had a few entrepreneurs at the top who created a world quality business. They also had to survive competition in the UK market from the start. That also shaped their destiny. Nothing much to do with the EU, the EU did not exist then.
I saw him live a few years ago and his songs do get into your head.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-polling-229863
I've actually used this is in business - "So, we will block/stop payment X and Y will happen anyway?".
I always enjoyed the silence at that bit...
As for Vodafone, I'll take your inability to spell their name as a sign of the depth of your knowledge about them.
And as predicted, one of our native Europhobes has come up with the: "Nothing much to do with the EU" line, when it evidently was, for the reasons I gave before.
There's a great section in the book 'Backroom Boys' about how Racal started Vodafone, and how the company developed. For instance, I did not know that the initial mobile rollout was along the triangle of M1, M5 and M4 motorways.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Backroom-Boys-Secret-Return-British/dp/0571214975
Perhaps you should read it.
I still find Mike Pence's position curious.
Finland joined the EU in 1995.
So how did the EU help Nokia develop the mobile phone?
By creating an environment where mobile phones could be sold throughout Europe, and making one standard that had to be used by all those countries. In particular, by reserving the frequencies required.
It created a massive market that European companies were already well equipped to exploit because many of them had had input into those standards.
It should be contrasted with the situation in the US, where companies were developing competing standards and some states used frequencies for different purposes. This meant that your phone that worked in New York may not work in Buffalo. It really hindered the US tech sector wrt early mobile phones.
'I'm afraid you have it all to come. Traveling through Europe and seeing the 'EU PASSPORTS AND OTHERS' is a very depressing sight. Knowing that in a few months we will no longer be sailing through the white on blue with the EU passengers but queuing up for hours with endless lines of South Koreans.
If this doesn't make you reconsider your vote wait till you try changing your basket currency whose value by then will be somewhere between the Somali Lira and the Monglolian Yak. '
I must have missed the 'sailing through' bit as EU PASSPORTS line is usually as slow as 'OTHERS'
US,Canadian & Australian nationals seem to manage the 'Others'well enough and don't seem to have the same hang ups as you queuing with 'South Koreans'.
Currencies go up & down, after the 2007 Brown economic collapse Sterling was virtually at parity with the euro, when the mess was sorted out Sterling appreciated.
Were you really expecting Sterling to remain stable during the two year exit process ?Meanwhile our exporters are enjoying a bonanza.
Not quite sure what to make of the topic stories. The relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor has weakened most British Governments since 1945. The Chancellor can either be a technocrat financier (Barber, Lawson) or a political Chancellor with one eye on the main prize (Brown, Osborne). If the latter, the political conflict with the Prime Minister especially if the Prime Minister becomes unpopular can be acute.
If Hammond sees himself as the cheerleader for the "soft" version of Brexit, fine. It's an option not without considerable support in the country and even within the Conservative Party. Outside the Cabinet, he becomes a Heseltine-type figure though without the charisma readsy to step in if or when May's strategy founders.
The problem is A50 is going to happen and the line from the EU (though a lot of it is as much about pre-negotiation posturing for domestic consumption much as here) seems to be that Single Market without Freedom of Movement is a non starter. I suspect there's more wiggle room in that statement than appears to be the case.
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/gsm_technical/gsm-history.php
http://www.gsmhistory.com/who_created-gsm/
And the very important:
http://www.gsmhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/4.-Bonn-Ministers-Declaration.pdf
There is plenty more out there.
Edit: and
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31987L0372&from=EN
Turn out could be low (favours the Party with the enthusiasts?)
Lib Dems have been focusing on Labour's best place Witney. Oodles of window banners and garden posters. Loads of Lib Dems on the streets of Witney today. They must have read my post last week I like to think
Some anecdotal evidence of Remain Tories backing Lib Dems actively.
The (numerous) LD leaflets are not in yellow, but red or blue depending on the subject (cute).
I must confess I don't like the terminology either but it's become almost the lingua franca of the debate.
I imagine Hammond is tilting for a pro-City deal which preserves as much Single Market access (financial passporting) as possible. It's probably fair to say the City has a different take on migration and freedom of movement than much of the rest of the UK
Walk along King William Street, Cornhill or Leadenhall Street on a weekday lunchtime and you hear some English but a lot of French, German and Italian spoken. For the European financial professional, London is the place to be.
Let's keep the hyperbole to a minimum, shall we.