The UK can kiss goodbye to Horizon and other collaborative projects .All non EU countries involved in those accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ .
Why should the UK be treated differently ? If you want to take part in projects which the EU run then it’s not rocket science that you’ll be under the ECJ . If you don’t like that then sod off to be blunt !
So, we are to have an "Australian style" points system for immigration and an "Australian style" (non) FTA with the EU.
To paraphrase Mrs Merton - Just what is it about that faraway country seen as full of 'people like us' that appeals so strongly to the Leave sensibility?
Its massively, massively outperformed the UK since we made what was in hindsight the mistake of turning our backs on the rest of the world to concentrate on one small continent instead.
Why wouldn't we want to learn lessons from our Australian cousins?
To have a resource based economy ?
That's a myth. Natural resources are a minor part of Australia's economy just as it is a minor part of ours too. Just like us, the vast majority of their economy is Services based.
The top 10 industries for employment in Australia - which one would sound odd in the UK?
1 Health care and social assistance 1758.5 13.5% 2 Retail trade 1265.9 9.7% 3 Construction 1190.5 9.2% 4 Professional, scientific and technical services 1161.6 8.9% 5 Education and training 1081.2 8.3% 6 Accommodation and food services 926.8 7.1% 7 Manufacturing 912.5 7.0% 8 Public administration and safety 832.5 6.4% 9 Transport, postal and warehousing 655.2 5.0% 10 Financial and insurance services 458.9 3.5%
The entire mining industry, while important, accounts for below 2% of Australia's employment and doesn't account for the major gap in performance over the last few decades.
That's a little misleading. Because while it's only a small portion of employment, it dominated both exports and investment, and is a major contributor to the tax base
It seems to me the issue there is not national security but the BBC. Perfectly reasonable to improve national security but not to have the BBC anymore.
I`m a big fan of the BBC. Always have been. I`d cite it as one of the very best things about Britain. However, even a fanboy like me has to say that they`ve lost my respect a tad over bias in recent months.
I'm not a fan of the BBC but I'm compelled by law to pay for it even if I want to watch a non-BBC product live. Sooner the licence fee is made optional the better. If you wish to pay for the BBC that should be your choice and it should compete on the free market with other rivals.
If the BBC is as fantastic as its supporters claim it is then people will voluntarily opt to pay a subscription fee for it.
I disagree with you obviously. You forward a libertarian viewpoint which is fair enough but which I don`t share. However, I have thought for some time that the licence fee is problematic for a few reasons and probably doomed. It should be scrapped and the BBC funded from general taxation, with protections in place to keep government out of the running of it, and an independant source to agree extent of the funding, and a cap of the maximum salaries BBC can pay.
So instead of being made to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch Sky or Netflix, your solution is my tax money goes to the BBC instead of schools or hospitals?
What about Bargain Hunt justifies it being paid for out of general taxation? I'm happy to be taxed to fund my local NHS but why should I be taxed to fund Would I Lie To You? Why should my tax money that could go to fund schools go to fund Eastenders instead?
Maybe Bargain Hunt should not be paid for but news that attempts to be impartial certainly should. The BBC sets a standard that other media outlets fear straying too far from. I don't want our news landscape to end up like America's.
The BBC news is the problem, its simply an ecow chamber, of left wing anti-Tory progressive, opinion. and yes the much of the rest of the media, including the government owned Chanel 4.
As such I for one will never pay for a 'licence' as a result I am legally banned form watching any live TV which frankly is an affront to my freedom.
Shame you can't get Fox over here anymore (no call for it, apparently).
Australia is a comparable country that we can relate to.
Aus isn't WTO, it has sector by sector agreements rather than a comprehensive agreement.
So its saying if we can't get a comprehensive deal then we will get a sector by sector deal instead.
Hmm. Not convinced. Managed No Deal has become an "Australian Style" FTA. And a bog standard immigration system has become an "Australian Style" points system. It's odd. So why? I've offered a reason and I think it's accurate - or let's say, in the new spirit of Brexit glasnost, that it's in the mix.
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
Incidentally I see no evidence the BBC is particularly special or great at providing a steady stream of niche low popularity broadcasting. Quite the opposite. My issue with the BBC is not only that I am compelled by law to pay for it but that it is dominated by populist meaningless crap.
If you want a specialist channel dedicated to history programming, or geography, or in a foreign language or sci fi, or whatever else you can find a channel or show with that on Sky or online. With hundreds of channels there are some very obscure and niche channels on Sky - and on Netflix and other online non-linear broadcasters too.
Far more than there are watching what could be any random episode of people dancing or fighting on Albert Square, or digging through antiques or whatever populist shit the BBC has on today.
I find most BBC output simply embarrassing now. Not biased, or worthy, or trite - though it is often those things - no, the abiding sin is that it is SHIT. Mediocre, dumbed and shoddy.
It’s sad. But its entire model has been overtaken by the enormous financial power of Netflix/streaming/internet/Apple etc which operate on a much higher level, often using British talent.
For the first time in my life, I reckon the BBC is doomed. I dunno how it can be saved.
Indeed, there is an argument to be made for quality over quantity but the fact is the BBC isn't that special at that anymore.
The fact any debate on the BBC normally [though hasn't yet] led to people referring to the quality shows of years or decades ago is rather telling. The BBC finds and funds a load of dross to put on which doesn't justify its price tag.
Being niche is acceptable. Being shit is not great.
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
Incidentally I see no evidence the BBC is particularly special or great at providing a steady stream of niche low popularity broadcasting. Quite the opposite. My issue with the BBC is not only that I am compelled by law to pay for it but that it is dominated by populist meaningless crap.
If you want a specialist channel dedicated to history programming, or geography, or in a foreign language or sci fi, or whatever else you can find a channel or show with that on Sky or online. With hundreds of channels there are some very obscure and niche channels on Sky - and on Netflix and other online non-linear broadcasters too.
Far more than there are watching what could be any random episode of people dancing or fighting on Albert Square, or digging through antiques or whatever populist shit the BBC has on today.
However, it would be difficult to replace its political coverage. In the past few years we have had several BBC documentaries on Brexit, or Ireland, or Thatcher, and in the upcoming POTUS election there will no doubt be more on that subject. And when they happen they are inevitably spoken of and dissected on PB. The programmes by Steve Richards[1] are invariably good, and where would @Andy_JS or @HarryHayfield 's YouTube channels be without uploaded BBC Parliament footage?
The UK can kiss goodbye to Horizon and other collaborative projects .All non EU countries involved in those accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ .
Why should the UK be treated differently ? If you want to take part in projects which the EU run then it’s not rocket science that you’ll be under the ECJ . If you don’t like that then sod off to be blunt !
Er, because international trade isn't a "project which the EU runs"?
The UK can kiss goodbye to Horizon and other collaborative projects .All non EU countries involved in those accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ .
Why should the UK be treated differently ? If you want to take part in projects which the EU run then it’s not rocket science that you’ll be under the ECJ . If you don’t like that then sod off to be blunt !
Er, because international trade isn't a "project which the EU runs"?
I wasn’t talking about trade . Horizon and other science projects aswell as Erasmus are EU projects with the ability of some non EU members to take part . If you want to take part you accept the ECJ . That’s it , if you don’t like it don’t take part .
Because for me it is a valuable public service I guess. A few reasons for this, primarily I`d say that having a broadcaster which doesn`t rely on advertisements is a big positive and secondly because if everything is commercially-driven, as you want, then content which only has niche popularity will wither fast.
I know you`ll say that popularity is the only thing that should matter when guiding content, but I simply don`t agree. I don`t agree that popular = good. Quality often = low viewing figures.
Call me a cultural elitist if you like. I`m happy with that.
Incidentally I see no evidence the BBC is particularly special or great at providing a steady stream of niche low popularity broadcasting. Quite the opposite. My issue with the BBC is not only that I am compelled by law to pay for it but that it is dominated by populist meaningless crap.
If you want a specialist channel dedicated to history programming, or geography, or in a foreign language or sci fi, or whatever else you can find a channel or show with that on Sky or online. With hundreds of channels there are some very obscure and niche channels on Sky - and on Netflix and other online non-linear broadcasters too.
Far more than there are watching what could be any random episode of people dancing or fighting on Albert Square, or digging through antiques or whatever populist shit the BBC has on today.
However, it would be difficult to replace its political coverage. In the past few years we have had several BBC documentaries on Brexit, or Ireland, or Thatcher, and in the upcoming POTUS election there will no doubt be more on that subject. And when they happen they are inevitably spoken of and dissected on PB. The programmes by Steve Richards[1] are invariably good, and where would @Andy_JS or @HarryHayfield 's YouTube channels be without uploaded BBC Parliament footage?
Some great documentaries on Netflix. On Flint, Michigan police force, a series/exposé on eg avocados and milk and wine, Ken Burns docs are on Netflix, etc.
I am under NHS house arrest with suspected coronavirus.
Can anyone beat that?
Really sorry to hear that - hope you're cleared soon.
Cheers mate. I’m feeling alright as it happens, a bit sick, fluey, etc. But not terminal.
However I have had some weird symptoms which have got the docs worried and last night I was ordered to put on a mask and get myself straight to UCH and an isolation ward (where in the end they did nothing, got confused, and sent me home)
I asked the woman from Public Health England why she was being so firm and she said “well I’ve talked to the microbiologists and we think you have avian flu or coronavirus”
Which sounded ok until I googled Avian Flu. It has a mortality rate of 60%.
That was not a happy hour. I drank an entire bottle of brilliant Rioja.
I thought this thread header was giving me the cannibalism of political leaders which definitely sounded promising. Put an end to any leadership aspirations of any vegans out there for a start. But it didn't quite deliver.
On the other hand, considering politicians today have very little brain and no backbone, the risks of a BSE type outbreak would be negligible!
I am under NHS house arrest with suspected coronavirus.
Can anyone beat that?
Really sorry to hear that - hope you're cleared soon.
Cheers mate. I’m feeling alright as it happens, a bit sick, fluey, etc. But not terminal.
However I have had some weird symptoms which have got the docs worried and last night I was ordered to put on a mask and get myself straight to UCH and an isolation ward (where in the end they did nothing, got confused, and sent me home)
I asked the woman from Public Health England why she was being so firm and she said “well I’ve talked to the microbiologists and we think you have avian flu or coronavirus”
Which sounded ok until I googled Avian Flu. It has a mortality rate of 60%.
That was not a happy hour. I drank an entire bottle of brilliant Rioja.
What were the "weird symptoms" that you speak of?
Quite a few minor ones but massive brief juddering fever was the first - spasming so hard I couldn’t hold a phone - and also nearly fainting.
Yet now I feel like I am clearly recovering. But the docs still don’t know what it is and I guess they are being super cautious. In case it if corona
I have already given it to my wife and her mum and her best friend so they have a point about contagion
It’s a fascinating insight into what a bad virus might really do. Coronavirus is relatively benign. A death rate of 2%. Ordinary flu is probably worse.
But imagine if avian flu did take off and become humanly contagious. A death rate of 60%????
We are one viral mutation away from societal breakdown
See Quammen`s excellent book on the topic: "Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic"
The UK can kiss goodbye to Horizon and other collaborative projects .All non EU countries involved in those accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ .
Why should the UK be treated differently ? If you want to take part in projects which the EU run then it’s not rocket science that you’ll be under the ECJ . If you don’t like that then sod off to be blunt !
Er, because international trade isn't a "project which the EU runs"?
I wasn’t talking about trade . Horizon and other science projects aswell as Erasmus are EU projects with the ability of some non EU members to take part . If you want to take part you accept the ECJ . That’s it , if you don’t like it don’t take part .
Switzerland is part of both schemes and doesn't sit under ECJ jurisdiction.
How many guardian readers read that and had an aneurysm of cognitive dissonance?
I mean if you read beyond the first line you would have noticed that isn’t what the article actually says.
Yes it does. Read the original and very authoritative FT article from which this is cribbed. The FT is hugely europhile. It’s Remainer central. Yet they print this
You clearly haven’t read it. It talks about a possible plan, drafted under previous leadership, which might happen, or it might not.
However you lead with: ‘Nissan WILL expand the Sunderland plant after a hard Brexit’.
Classic fake news.
Of course, this is how you’d have interpreted it, if the headline had been “Nissan to close Sunderland after Brexit” right? You’d have seen the nuance then also?
ffs. You people are just ridiculous now. You are embittered idiots verging on treachery and you’d be happier in another country.
The odds against both SeanT and Byronic succumbing to the virus were strangely close to those for Byronic alone. I don’t know enough about gambling to understand why this might be so.
Comments
Why should the UK be treated differently ? If you want to take part in projects which the EU run then it’s not rocket science that you’ll be under the ECJ . If you don’t like that then sod off to be blunt !
Those who want to opt out should be, ah, licence-free!
See:
Exports: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus/
Investments: https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/australian-industries-and-foreign-investment.aspx
Let's give it to Claudia Winkleman instead."
The fact any debate on the BBC normally [though hasn't yet] led to people referring to the quality shows of years or decades ago is rather telling. The BBC finds and funds a load of dross to put on which doesn't justify its price tag.
Being niche is acceptable. Being shit is not great.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006y2p/episodes/player
You'll have to give us the gory details of where it sits on the flu <- > man-flu scale. Hope it isn't as bad as man-flu.....
In fact, at a distance of millions of km from a star it might not due to the effect of the solar wind.