The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed.
The question on the ballot paper was clear. The answer was plain. Any “background information” is a matter for the executive to determine and reap the benefits/pay the costs of their judgement.
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
What's the trap?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
No point in running the old argument
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyed
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal
But those are just mirrors of the implications for the Tories if they either end up revoking without a referendum, create chaos by crashing out without a deal, or somehow thrust their deal through against the wishes of the ultra Brexiters and many of their members.
As I said, any way forward needs to be assessed against the likely others; taking any single way forward and concluding that it is damaging doesn't help much, since they all are.
At least with a vote it would be down to the voters, not the politicians.
People will live with the deal.
That people will live with it is why Grievers and no dealers make common cause in opposing it.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
Out of necessity, it was very much a dog eat dog world. I improved my standard of living by plundering or enslaving you. Most people lived just above subsistence, and the surplus above subsistence was in the hands of a few people.
Mr. Jessop, that's quite interesting, thanks for that post.
Although it seems even more bizarre that apparently the only firm ready is also the dodgiest one.
Well, I need to be careful about what I say because Mrs J works in the industry. But telecoms is an area of tech that's quite easy to break into because of the rapid rate of change - especially if you don't bother about patents and steal stuff (though to be fair, Huwaei are apparently darned good at what they do, and I'm not accusing them directly).
There are other suppliers of 5G kit: but when you choose kit from different suppliers, especially of new tech, then you get issues with interoperability that can take ages to solve. With one supplier, it'll just work. That's one heck of an advantage.
ISTR that Nokia were the go-to end-to-end supplier for Telecoms equipment for the first couple of digital iterations using GSM. You could buy everything you needed from them, from transmittter kit to handsets.
Edit: and the US have really mucked up. Again. There is a role for government in sorting this sort of mess out; it worked brilliantly for the EU with GSM.
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
What's the trap?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
No point in running the old argument
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyed
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal
But those are just mirrors of the implications for the Tories if they either end up revoking without a referendum, create chaos by crashing out without a deal, or somehow thrust their deal through against the wishes of the ultra Brexiters and many of their members.
As I said, any way forward needs to be assessed against the likely others; taking any single way forward and concluding that it is damaging doesn't help much, since they all are.
At least with a vote it would be down to the voters, not the politicians.
People will live with the deal.
That people will live with it is why Grievers and no dealers make common cause in opposing it.
Yes. It’s also why it’s the best option for the Tories.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture (though, I suppose you could say the same of the 20th century).
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed.
The question on the ballot paper was clear. The answer was plain. Any “background information” is a matter for the executive to determine and reap the benefits/pay the costs of their judgement.
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
The question on the paper was not clear, given the supporting information given to the electorate was so contradictory.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
There are other suppliers of 5G kit: but when you choose kit from different suppliers, especially of new tech, then you get issues with interoperability that can take ages to solve. With one supplier, it'll just work. That's one heck of an advantage.
I take issue with that statement.
In the strictly Telecom World, it may be true. In the wider World of networking equipment, it is certainly the vendors' pitch, but rarely true.
Cisco are the largest network equipment vendor on the planet, and they got that way buy buying almost every piece of tech from someone else. Painting the boxes blue doesn't magically make them work together, and their approach to systems integration is often simplistic in their rush to market.
They made an early "Layer 3 switch", that is a switch with routing capabilities. It was a switch with a router on another card in the same box.
They produced a "wireless LAN controller switch". A switch, with a separate wireless LAN controller card in the box...
And that's before we get to which versions of code run on which versions of hardware fitted with which options...
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed.
The question on the ballot paper was clear. The answer was plain. Any “background information” is a matter for the executive to determine and reap the benefits/pay the costs of their judgement.
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
The question on the paper was not clear, given the supporting information given to the electorate was so contradictory.
What?
Lots of people provided their perspectives. The voters weighed it all up and answered a simple question: leave or remain
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
Well, yes.
The WA is (a) fair, (b) extracts us from the EU, and (c) does so without inflicting meaningful economic damage.
Most of the objections to it come from (a) not having read it, (b) not understanding the concept of international law, or (c) a belief that if we do a deal with the EU, then it must be a bad one.
Oh I know. I’d suggest that the persecution and torture as a means of control were a reaction by the established order to the threat to their hegemony. One can see the same today, sometimes manifesting in similar, albeit subtler, ways.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
In the absence of scientific rational thought to explain or develop anything, or many nationwide government institutions to deal with the myriad of social problems, it did a lot to explain and fill the void.
There are other suppliers of 5G kit: but when you choose kit from different suppliers, especially of new tech, then you get issues with interoperability that can take ages to solve. With one supplier, it'll just work. That's one heck of an advantage.
I take issue with that statement.
In the strictly Telecom World, it may be true. In the wider World of networking equipment, it is certainly the vendors' pitch, but rarely true.
Cisco are the largest network equipment vendor on the planet, and they got that way buy buying almost every piece of tech from someone else. Painting the boxes blue doesn't magically make them work together, and their approach to systems integration is often simplistic in their rush to market.
They made an early "Layer 3 switch", that is a switch with routing capabilities. It was a switch with a router on another card in the same box.
They produced a "wireless LAN controller switch". A switch, with a separate wireless LAN controller card in the box...
And that's before we get to which versions of code run on which versions of hardware fitted with which options...
Only for a very narrow definition of "network equipment".
Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia and (at a stretch) Fujitsu can all make plausible claims to be number one.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
Life will be similarly ghastly for many of our descendants if we refuse to adapt our means of production so as to stop destroying the environment that supports us.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture (though, I suppose you could say the same of the 20th century).
Which had the better entertainment? You know, movies, theatre, public performances where slaves died in combat?
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed.
The question on the ballot paper was clear. The answer was plain. Any “background information” is a matter for the executive to determine and reap the benefits/pay the costs of their judgement.
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
The question on the paper was not clear, given the supporting information given to the electorate was so contradictory.
What?
Lots of people provided their perspectives. The voters weighed it all up and answered a simple question: leave or remain
Talking to 'ordinary' people, there is a very large range of views on both the remainer and leaver side. The fact that so many leavers are saying things like: "May's deal is not what I voted for," shows that the question was as clear as mud - due to the open nature of the question and the contradictory campaigns.
IME (and this is anecdata), leavers accepting May's deal are much more common on PB than they are outside our bubble. Perhaps that's because, as RCS says, more people on here are likely to have read it.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
An interesting piece. But "His gaping maw can be viewed wherever you look," does suggest personal animosity on your part, and I suspect he is extremely marmite-like. But given all the negatives, the fact that he destroyed Clegg in debate does suggest either …
(1) He's a magnificent debater (unlikely). (2) Cleggy is a crap debater (unlikely). (3) Remain was difficult to defend.
There are other suppliers of 5G kit: but when you choose kit from different suppliers, especially of new tech, then you get issues with interoperability that can take ages to solve. With one supplier, it'll just work. That's one heck of an advantage.
I take issue with that statement.
In the strictly Telecom World, it may be true. In the wider World of networking equipment, it is certainly the vendors' pitch, but rarely true.
Cisco are the largest network equipment vendor on the planet, and they got that way buy buying almost every piece of tech from someone else. Painting the boxes blue doesn't magically make them work together, and their approach to systems integration is often simplistic in their rush to market.
They made an early "Layer 3 switch", that is a switch with routing capabilities. It was a switch with a router on another card in the same box.
They produced a "wireless LAN controller switch". A switch, with a separate wireless LAN controller card in the box...
And that's before we get to which versions of code run on which versions of hardware fitted with which options...
That's all fair enough, but look at the history of Nokia, and the way there is often one winner for such infrastructure in an end-to-end way, rather than a mix-and-match approach.
(I totally acknowledge that this is more your side of the industry than (what used to be) mine.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
Life will be similarly ghastly for many of our descendants if we refuse to adapt our means of production so as to stop destroying the environment that supports us.
Good job we’re not refusing to do that then.
You're kidding yourself if you believe that. It's mostly mouth service. The minuscule efforts that we (globally speaking) have made so far are nowhere near sufficient for the long-term sustainability of our environment.
An interesting piece. But "His gaping maw can be viewed wherever you look," does suggest personal animosity on your part, and I suspect he is extremely marmite-like. But given all the negatives, the fact that he destroyed Clegg in debate does suggest either …
(1) He's a magnificent debater (unlikely). (2) Cleggy is a crap debater (unlikely). (3) Remain was difficult to defend.
Looking back on the debates, from my position as a (sane) Leaver, I think Clegg made a number of major errors.
In particular, one thing stood out, and that was a 20 minute argument over whether 70% of the legislation of the House of Commons was just regurgitation of EU diktats that we were obliged to follow by treaty.
Clegg attempted to defend this on the basis that "Oh, it's all product standards", and some such rubbish.
When the reality is that it's nowhere near 70%. Indeed, having looked through legislation, I'd be staggered if it was 10%.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture (though, I suppose you could say the same of the 20th century).
Which had the better entertainment? You know, movies, theatre, public performances where slaves died in combat?
Slaves dying in combat was not even the worst of it. Condemned women being raped to death was a most amusing form of public entertainment; or suspected non-virgins being buried alive; or criminals being crucified.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture...
Is there anyone apart from Newton who came close to combining the two interests, though ?
The only instruction the voteeaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed.
The question on the ballot paper was clear. The answer was plain. Any “background information” is a matter for the executive to determine and reap the benefits/pay the costs of their judgement.
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
The question on the paper was not clear, given the supporting information given to the electorate was so contradictory.
What?
Lots of people provided their perspectives. The voters weighed it all up and answered a simple question: leave or remain
Talking to 'ordinary' people, there is a very large range of views on both the remainer and leaver side. The fact that so many leavers are saying things like: "May's deal is not what I voted for," shows that the question was as clear as mud - due to the open nature of the question and the contradictory campaigns.
IME (and this is anecdata), leavers accepting May's deal are much more common on PB than they are outside our bubble. Perhaps that's because, as RCS says, more people on here are likely to have read it.
I’m glad you agree with me
No voter voted for Mrs May’s deal. The deal is the executive’s judgement on how best to exit the EU as instructed by the voters
People will have their opportunity to judge the executive’s overall performance at the next general election. I suspect that, for some people, the deal will be an important contributing factor to their overall assessment
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
Life will be similarly ghastly for many of our descendants if we refuse to adapt our means of production so as to stop destroying the environment that supports us.
Good job we’re not refusing to do that then.
You're kidding yourself if you believe that. It's mostly mouth service. The minuscule efforts that we (globally speaking) have made so far are nowhere near sufficient for the long-term sustainability of our environment.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
From what I've seen, she isn't claiming to be an expert on climate change. Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
Life will be similarly ghastly for many of our descendants if we refuse to adapt our means of production so as to stop destroying the environment that supports us.
Good job we’re not refusing to do that then.
You're kidding yourself if you believe that. It's mostly mouth service. The minuscule efforts that we (globally speaking) have made so far are nowhere near sufficient for the long-term sustainability of our environment.
I like the idea of mouth service.
Is it different to lip service?
☺️
Pretty similar. Intended to placate, but also offering a fuzzy glow of well-being :-)
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
From what I've seen, she isn't claiming to be an expert on climate change. Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice.
I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a European Directive and a European Regulation. It's how you define UK legislation. If Cleggy wants to argue about angels dancing, he's in the wrong job.
I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a European Directive and a European Regulation. It's how you define UK legislation. If Cleggy wants to argue about angels dancing, he's in the wrong job.
If you want to argue about Parliamentary sovereignty, then it’s hardly that.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
From what I've seen, she isn't claiming to be an expert on climate change. Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice.
So she doesn’t think that elected representatives should have any input into what has had (and will continue to have) a massive economic impact on the voters?
This is not to say scientists are wrong, but every action has a cost and there is judgement required.
"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
That's a shame. It would have been interesting to see how he got on in the media. I'd predict badly, but you never know.
Yes, it would have been interesting. It appears they are going for a touchy feely, no real leader, don’t say anything nasty look, and Dawkins can be a bit of a divisive firebrand
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
From what I've seen, she isn't claiming to be an expert on climate change. Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice.
So she doesn’t think that elected representatives should have any input into what has had (and will continue to have) a massive economic impact on the voters?
This is not to say scientists are wrong, but every action has a cost and there is judgement required.
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing. "The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture...
Is there anyone apart from Newton who came close to combining the two interests, though ?
John Calvin, Jean Bodin, James I, were extremely learned men who advocated the burning of witches and heretics.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
She’s a teenager; they are designed to get on your nerves.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
From what I've seen, she isn't claiming to be an expert on climate change. Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice.
So she doesn’t think that elected representatives should have any input into what has had (and will continue to have) a massive economic impact on the voters?
This is not to say scientists are wrong, but every action has a cost and there is judgement required.
Well, you need to remember that Cisco owns GoToMeeting, which definitely isn't telecoms equipment.
And Ericsson and Fujitsu have massive services businesses,
And Nokia is a roll-up of Alcatel, Siemens, and a bunch of other firms
Etc.
I am not sure I really want to argue it at all, but it's the crossover/convergence where it gets interesting.
As pointed out upthread, in the early days of mobile phones, when all you could do was make calls, buying all the kit from a single vendor made sense, and Nokia made a killing.
When large offices needed fixed phone lines on every desk, Nortel were huge.
Now that mobile phones are primarily data access portals, and desk phones have been replaced with computer headsets, what matters is how you move IP packets around.
The Cisco marketing claim, which seems reasonable to me, is that every packet on "the Internet" passes through at least one Cisco device, which does make them a fairly serious player (even if their gear is absolutely not the best of breed in any market they play in)
I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a European Directive and a European Regulation. It's how you define UK legislation. If Cleggy wants to argue about angels dancing, he's in the wrong job.
He didn't. He argued quite the opposite. He accepted the 70% number, when even a cursory reading of the Acts of Parliament of 2014 would have made it incredibly obvious even to the most dimwitted that 70% of legislation was not EU directed.
No voter voted for Mrs May’s deal. The deal is the executive’s judgement on how best to exit the EU as instructed by the voters
People will have their opportunity to judge the executive’s overall performance at the next general election. I suspect that, for some people, the deal will be an important contributing factor to their overall assessment
Charles, If you think I'm agreeing with you, then you've utterly lost track of the argument.
It's impossible to follow the 'instruction' of the vote because leavers did not make it clear what it meant. That does not mean the PM can steamroller through her interpretation.
No voter voted for Mrs May’s deal. The deal is the executive’s judgement on how best to exit the EU as instructed by the voters
People will have their opportunity to judge the executive’s overall performance at the next general election. I suspect that, for some people, the deal will be an important contributing factor to their overall assessment
Charles, If you think I'm agreeing with you, then you've utterly lost track of the argument.
It's impossible to follow the 'instruction' of the vote because leavers did not make it clear what it meant. That does not mean the PM can steamroller through her interpretation.
(Note: I'm in favour of May's deal.)
Charles is in favour of the Divine Right of the Tory Prime Minister.
Well, you need to remember that Cisco owns GoToMeeting, which definitely isn't telecoms equipment.
And Ericsson and Fujitsu have massive services businesses,
And Nokia is a roll-up of Alcatel, Siemens, and a bunch of other firms
Etc.
I am not sure I really want to argue it at all, but it's the crossover/convergence where it gets interesting.
As pointed out upthread, in the early days of mobile phones, when all you could do was make calls, buying all the kit from a single vendor made sense, and Nokia made a killing.
Errr.
Except that in the late 1990s, when mobile phone penetration went from 1% to 90%, Nokia had only a small role in infrastructure, and was very big in handsets.
So this 'one vendor' thing of which you speak was bullshit: other than Orange, no UK telecoms operator bought meaningful amounts of Nokia network kit. Ericsson dominated both the air interface side, and was bigger in switching.
"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
It is important for politicians to listen to scientists: and they have been listening: witness the large changes that have been already been made.
However scientists have one view; politicians need to weight up competing views and requirements. They often need to find a middle ground that minimises harm to areas other than the environment: scientists often aren't interested in that when they give their advice.
In addition, scientists aren't the only interested parties: they're also sometimes wrong.
As is often the case, cries of "The politicians aren't listening!" really mean "The politicians aren't doing what I want!"
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
Except they won't, if we are still in the EU by the next general election the Leavers in all parties will surge to the Brexit Party and Remainers will split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories with the likely result PM Farage.
Much as in 2015 Nationalists all went SNP and Unionists split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories and the SNP swept the board
If you think Brexit is that salient to people who voted Leave of all parties that they'll all virtually desert the party they've voted for to date, why are Brexit and UKIP combined polling under 20% now? Even in the Euro election polling they're under 30%, and that's a pure free hit, about Europe, with no need to worry about anything except sending a message about Brexit.
As most people still think we will leave the EU by the next general election, the European elections are being used as the message to ensure it happens hence the Brexit Party leads those.
If we are still in the EU by the next general election that is another matter entirely
"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
The thing about Science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?
May attempts indicative votes after labour talks collapse (what are they discussing that could not be done in an hour?), some MPs jump ship to Brexit party, government falls, GE, Labour go for referendum, alliance of that wins, remain win .
Labour is not going to go for a referendum given most Labour seats voted Leave, hence Corbyn still refuses to back them and Deal plus Customs Union is closer to a majority in the Commons than EUref2. It would take Labour to be comfortably largest party and reliant on the SNP and LDs for EUref2 I think
"That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us."
"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
The thing about Science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.
The 'science' may be true; our understanding of the science might not be.
If we are still in the EU by the time of the next general election and the Tories have not replaced May by a hard Brexiteer there is a clear chance of an SNP 2015 style wave for the Brexit Party and Farage ends up PM
That's not really true though.
The Nats rode a wave of Nationalism against Unionist opponents.
Brexit candidates will be up against Tories, who are also pitching for the Little Englander vote
They could just end up splitting the vote in England and winning very little.
If we are out of the EU by the next general election and the Tories are led by Boris or Raab then the Brexit Party will collapse anyway and the vast majority of Leavers will vote Tory while Labour Leavers stick with Corbyn.
If however we are still in the EU at the next general election and May still leads the Tories or another Remainer like Hunt or Rudd then Leavers will surge to the Brexit Party against the Remainer Labour, LD and Tory parties
Mr. Song, for a couple of centuries after his death, the scientific community would brook no disagreement with Isaac Newton's view on light (I forget if he was for particle or wave theory but he believed in a single property). The wave-particle duality approach currently favoured by most thus wasn't entertained seriously because the reverence for Newton made it a matter of heresy.
Science isn't about truth or belief. It doesn't stop. Its theories get continually disproved or refined over time as new evidence and perspectives that better fit the facts emerge.
The idea that not 'believing' in a scientific theory is a bad thing fundamentally misunderstands the scientific mindset. It's sceptical. It's, like PB, a case of saying 'prove it'. And competing opinions about a matter are entirely fine.
It's not religious. It's not a case of believing The Truth or being a heretic. And those who think it is betray themselves not as interested in exploring science but in imposing dogma and silencing critics not by the power of reason and weight of evidence but through the brute force of censorship and accusations of heresy.
"That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us."
Unfortunately so.
But oddly, it's also right that they should do so. They should say what they think we need to do. However we need to be mature enough to understand that others also have a right to say what we need to do, and those views may differ on substantive points.
Therefore politicians need to weigh up the competing interests and do what is right for the country. If anything, it's not that they're not listening: they're listening too much.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?
We get expelled by the French at the end of October.
She'll be proposing handcuffing someone to something before you know it Lot of colours being shown now the ludicrous Farage has a new recruiting sergeant
Mr. Song, for a couple of centuries after his death, the scientific community would brook no disagreement with Isaac Newton's view on light (I forget if he was for particle or wave theory but he believed in a single property). The wave-particle duality approach currently favoured by most thus wasn't entertained seriously because the reverence for Newton made it a matter of heresy.
Science isn't about truth or belief. It doesn't stop. Its theories get continually disproved or refined over time as new evidence and perspectives that better fit the facts emerge.
The idea that not 'believing' in a scientific theory is a bad thing fundamentally misunderstands the scientific mindset. It's sceptical. It's, like PB, a case of saying 'prove it'. And competing opinions about a matter are entirely fine.
It's not religious. It's not a case of believing The Truth or being a heretic. And those who think it is betray themselves not as interested in exploring science but in imposing dogma and silencing critics not by the power of reason and weight of evidence but through the brute force of censorship and accusations of heresy.
Questioning and expressing scepticism about a scientific theory is reasonable if there is meaningful evidence that contradicts the theory.
Maintaining that scepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence that the theory accurately describes current behaviour (and arguing that the contradictory opinion is equally valid) is not.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
Whereas I’m sure there is no self-interest involved for all the investors in Oil & Gas, the car industry etc who are sceptical of climate change.
David Finkelstein hasn’t had a new idea since 2010. It shows.
You can write the same story for the Tory party after Revoke and after May's Deal as that only delays things with the same arguments continuing as the final end point is negotiated...
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
You’re either being deliberately obtuse or don’t understand the concept of fluctuations from a long-term trend. Did you enjoy the sunny weather in February?
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
Mr. Song, for a couple of centuries after his death, the scientific community would brook no disagreement with Isaac Newton's view on light (I forget if he was for particle or wave theory but he believed in a single property). The wave-particle duality approach currently favoured by most thus wasn't entertained seriously because the reverence for Newton made it a matter of heresy.
Science isn't about truth or belief. It doesn't stop. Its theories get continually disproved or refined over time as new evidence and perspectives that better fit the facts emerge.
The idea that not 'believing' in a scientific theory is a bad thing fundamentally misunderstands the scientific mindset. It's sceptical. It's, like PB, a case of saying 'prove it'. And competing opinions about a matter are entirely fine.
It's not religious. It's not a case of believing The Truth or being a heretic. And those who think it is betray themselves not as interested in exploring science but in imposing dogma and silencing critics not by the power of reason and weight of evidence but through the brute force of censorship and accusations of heresy.
But what we don't do is use healthy scepticism as an excuse not to act on the best evidence that we have. The evidence we have today clearly points in one direction, but for political reasons we choose to avoid the hard decisions that it demands.
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
I’ll-informed bloke off internet muddles up weather and climate. Again.
Comments
On the second point I understand that there is a wider context. The “spirit of the agreement” is in many cases more important than the legal text.
There are other suppliers of 5G kit: but when you choose kit from different suppliers, especially of new tech, then you get issues with interoperability that can take ages to solve. With one supplier, it'll just work. That's one heck of an advantage.
ISTR that Nokia were the go-to end-to-end supplier for Telecoms equipment for the first couple of digital iterations using GSM. You could buy everything you needed from them, from transmittter kit to handsets.
Edit: and the US have really mucked up. Again. There is a role for government in sorting this sort of mess out; it worked brilliantly for the EU with GSM.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1120938371248001024
Still: there are two separate groups guilty for Brexit not having happened:
1. Those who seek to prevent it through procedural means
2. Those who seek only their perfect Brexit, and believe any deviation is heresy
My fault with the Brexit Party is that obsesses about the former, and pretends the latter does not exist.
Don’t like the original result, change the rules and have a re-run of the original vote.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture (though, I suppose you could say the same of the 20th century).
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
In the strictly Telecom World, it may be true. In the wider World of networking equipment, it is certainly the vendors' pitch, but rarely true.
Cisco are the largest network equipment vendor on the planet, and they got that way buy buying almost every piece of tech from someone else. Painting the boxes blue doesn't magically make them work together, and their approach to systems integration is often simplistic in their rush to market.
They made an early "Layer 3 switch", that is a switch with routing capabilities. It was a switch with a router on another card in the same box.
They produced a "wireless LAN controller switch". A switch, with a separate wireless LAN controller card in the box...
And that's before we get to which versions of code run on which versions of hardware fitted with which options...
Lots of people provided their perspectives. The voters weighed it all up and answered a simple question: leave or remain
The WA is (a) fair, (b) extracts us from the EU, and (c) does so without inflicting meaningful economic damage.
Most of the objections to it come from (a) not having read it, (b) not understanding the concept of international law, or (c) a belief that if we do a deal with the EU, then it must be a bad one.
Or (d), it's a Tory deal.
Oh I know. I’d suggest that the persecution and torture as a means of control were a reaction by the established order to the threat to their hegemony. One can see the same today, sometimes manifesting in similar, albeit subtler, ways.
Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia and (at a stretch) Fujitsu can all make plausible claims to be number one.
Good job we’re not refusing to do that then.
IME (and this is anecdata), leavers accepting May's deal are much more common on PB than they are outside our bubble. Perhaps that's because, as RCS says, more people on here are likely to have read it.
I’ll admit to be puzzled why anyone should think her an expert on climate change, but it’s a fair point that dealing with it is of more import to teenagers than it might be to some of the more elderly among us.
2050 is quite likely to be beyond the horizon for quite a few of us on PB, but a thirty year effort is more or less what is needed.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320934766_Global_Energy_System_based_on_100_Renewable_Energy_-_Power_Sector
An interesting piece. But "His gaping maw can be viewed wherever you look," does suggest personal animosity on your part, and I suspect he is extremely marmite-like. But given all the negatives, the fact that he destroyed Clegg in debate does suggest either …
(1) He's a magnificent debater (unlikely).
(2) Cleggy is a crap debater (unlikely).
(3) Remain was difficult to defend.
This could be a VERY pedantic argument...
(I totally acknowledge that this is more your side of the industry than (what used to be) mine.
"2050 is quite likely to be beyond the horizon for quite a few of us on PB,"
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
I thought they were predicting extinction for all of us in twelve years time. In twelve years time, they'll still be saying that.
In particular, one thing stood out, and that was a 20 minute argument over whether 70% of the legislation of the House of Commons was just regurgitation of EU diktats that we were obliged to follow by treaty.
Clegg attempted to defend this on the basis that "Oh, it's all product standards", and some such rubbish.
When the reality is that it's nowhere near 70%. Indeed, having looked through legislation, I'd be staggered if it was 10%.
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1120638857274437633?s=21
No voter voted for Mrs May’s deal. The deal is the executive’s judgement on how best to exit the EU as instructed by the voters
People will have their opportunity to judge the executive’s overall performance at the next general election. I suspect that, for some people, the deal will be an important contributing factor to their overall assessment
But there are a number of different markets.
Want to use "raw" sales numbers?
Well, you need to remember that Cisco owns GoToMeeting, which definitely isn't telecoms equipment.
And Ericsson and Fujitsu have massive services businesses,
And Nokia is a roll-up of Alcatel, Siemens, and a bunch of other firms
Etc.
I've just corrected 'I intend to love forever' to what I meant to say.
Is it different to lip service?
😮
(I see you’ve corrected the typo; disappointing.)
I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a European Directive and a European Regulation. It's how you define UK legislation. If Cleggy wants to argue about angels dancing, he's in the wrong job.
This is not to say scientists are wrong, but every action has a cost and there is judgement required.
"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
As pointed out upthread, in the early days of mobile phones, when all you could do was make calls, buying all the kit from a single vendor made sense, and Nokia made a killing.
When large offices needed fixed phone lines on every desk, Nortel were huge.
Now that mobile phones are primarily data access portals, and desk phones have been replaced with computer headsets, what matters is how you move IP packets around.
The Cisco marketing claim, which seems reasonable to me, is that every packet on "the Internet" passes through at least one Cisco device, which does make them a fairly serious player (even if their gear is absolutely not the best of breed in any market they play in)
It is also out of date, with Ann Widdecombe now being added to the list of Brexit Party candidates.
Time for a new thread, perhaps?
It's impossible to follow the 'instruction' of the vote because leavers did not make it clear what it meant. That does not mean the PM can steamroller through her interpretation.
(Note: I'm in favour of May's deal.)
Though I think she is for the chop soon...
Except that in the late 1990s, when mobile phone penetration went from 1% to 90%, Nokia had only a small role in infrastructure, and was very big in handsets.
So this 'one vendor' thing of which you speak was bullshit: other than Orange, no UK telecoms operator bought meaningful amounts of Nokia network kit. Ericsson dominated both the air interface side, and was bigger in switching.
However scientists have one view; politicians need to weight up competing views and requirements. They often need to find a middle ground that minimises harm to areas other than the environment: scientists often aren't interested in that when they give their advice.
In addition, scientists aren't the only interested parties: they're also sometimes wrong.
As is often the case, cries of "The politicians aren't listening!" really mean "The politicians aren't doing what I want!"
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
If we are still in the EU by the next general election that is another matter entirely
"That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us."
Unfortunately so.
Science should never be a religion.
If however we are still in the EU at the next general election and May still leads the Tories or another Remainer like Hunt or Rudd then Leavers will surge to the Brexit Party against the Remainer Labour, LD and Tory parties
Science isn't about truth or belief. It doesn't stop. Its theories get continually disproved or refined over time as new evidence and perspectives that better fit the facts emerge.
The idea that not 'believing' in a scientific theory is a bad thing fundamentally misunderstands the scientific mindset. It's sceptical. It's, like PB, a case of saying 'prove it'. And competing opinions about a matter are entirely fine.
It's not religious. It's not a case of believing The Truth or being a heretic. And those who think it is betray themselves not as interested in exploring science but in imposing dogma and silencing critics not by the power of reason and weight of evidence but through the brute force of censorship and accusations of heresy.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
Therefore politicians need to weigh up the competing interests and do what is right for the country. If anything, it's not that they're not listening: they're listening too much.
What a lovely match .
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
Lot of colours being shown now the ludicrous Farage has a new recruiting sergeant
Maintaining that scepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence that the theory accurately describes current behaviour (and arguing that the contradictory opinion is equally valid) is not.
Whereas I’m sure there is no self-interest involved for all the investors in Oil & Gas, the car industry etc who are sceptical of climate change.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast.
Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.