politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle between LAB & CON viewed through the perspective of
Comments
-
Jonathan said:
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TMJonathan said:
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.Big_G_NorthWales said:Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.0 -
Except they're not saying that.gypsumfantastic said:
Just because the people who run every single industry in the UK are quite clear that No Deal would be an unmitigated disaster, we choose to listen to them rather than Philip Thompson, Internet Gammon?Philip_Thompson said:
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.TOPPING said:
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.gypsumfantastic said:
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we voted to leave the EU.gypsumfantastic said:
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
That's just rude.
Some are saying it could be problematic. Some are saying it is making planning difficult. Some have said they'd re-look at investments.
I can't think of anyone who runs a single industry let alone every single industry in the UK who says it would be quote "an unmitigated disaster". Care to quote that fictional person?0 -
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.TOPPING said:
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.TOPPING said:
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?Richard_Tyndall said:
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.TOPPING said:
"All the UK would have to do..."Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.TOPPING said:
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.0 -
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.Foxy said:
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.TOPPING said:
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.TOPPING said:
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?Richard_Tyndall said:
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.TOPPING said:
"All the UK would have to do..."Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.TOPPING said:
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.0 -
That is the same whatever the timescale, though a bit of time at least makes it more feasible.Philip_Thompson said:
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.Foxy said:
If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.TOPPING said:
Absolute rubbish. You were the one bleating on about the big boy who stole your sweets.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. The old subject switch to generalised insults when you have been proved, once again, to be talking bollocks. It took you less time to get there this time than usual. Maybe you are learning something.TOPPING said:
Always someone else's fault, eh, Richard?Richard_Tyndall said:
We haven't spent two years trying to square this circle. We have spent two years trying to deal with fuckwits who use this as an excuse to undermine Brexit. It is not a solution to the issue at hand because people like you and the rest of the Remainers along with your friends in the EU have decided that they do not want this solution. And as one half of the negotiation we cannot just ignore the EU. Hence the unnecessary backstop.TOPPING said:
"All the UK would have to do..."Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. All the UK e UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.TOPPING said:
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
What would be acceptable to the WTO is immaterial as long as those trying to undermine Brexit continue to claim there must be a backstop. This is politics, not trade rules.
Brexiter geniuses couldn't even wargame likely scenarios following a leave vote.
We are leaving but dear god you lot are so stupid you really don't deserve to.
So fine tell me - what is this fantasy agreement or assurance that is all that we'd have to do.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.0 -
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?Philip_Thompson said:
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.TOPPING said:
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.gypsumfantastic said:
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we voted to leave the EU.gypsumfantastic said:
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
0 -
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make to Topping but he seems to be incapable of understanding it.rcs1000 said:
The WTO issue is not that it coul its farmers should get the same treatment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. All the UK would have to do would b they would be in accord with the WTO rules.TOPPING said:
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.0 -
Time's not the issue, pressure is.Foxy said:
That is the same whatever the timescale, though a bit of time at least makes it more feasible.Philip_Thompson said:
The problem is whether both parties want the tech solution to work or not.Foxy said:If there is a simple tech solution that works, then the backstop is not a problem. It could easily be implemented by Dec 2020.
If it is unicorn poop, then of course things are different.
If the UK leaves into a backstop-less transition next month then it puts both parties under pressure to find a viable solution.
If the UK leaves into a transition with a backstop at the end of it, it takes the pressure off the EU and any solution must be viewed as better than keeping us in the backstop.
Necessity is the mother of invention.0 -
Keep up! Free trade is no longer a good thing. The EU FTA with Japan is why Nissan made the decision.Roger said:
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?Philip_Thompson said:
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.TOPPING said:
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.gypsumfantastic said:
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we voted to leave the EU.gypsumfantastic said:
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
Haartlepool demands protective tarrifs and fortress England!0 -
I hope she consults me next time._Anazina_ said:Jonathan said:
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TMJonathan said:
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.Big_G_NorthWales said:Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street0 -
The notion that the EU wish to trap the UK against the clear will of the UK into the backstop situation in perpetuity does not ring true to me. In fact I am comfortable to opine that it is not true.0
-
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.0 -
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.0 -
Keep an eye on her and don’t let her out into the garden. She will cause havoc running through your herbaceous borders.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I hope she consults me next time._Anazina_ said:Jonathan said:
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TMJonathan said:
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.Big_G_NorthWales said:Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street0 -
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.0 -
There are two very distinct things that are being (deliberately) confusedviewcode said:
It's not a silly question. In fact it's quite a sensible one. The term "border poll" has a special meaning in Northern Ireland. In 1973 there was a NI referendum on whether NI should remain part of the UK or leave it and join the Republic of Ireland. It was referred to as the "border poll". The term sounds anodyne to English ears, who imagine it to be a technical question about customs posts or smuggling booze, ho ho. To people in Northern Ireland the meaning is very different. I have heard the term bandied around a lot recently but I do not know which meaning is being used.OldKingCole said:
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.
1. A “border poll” is a vote on reunification and/or where the border should be (in ‘23 Ulster was split - hence NI - with 6 counties remaining in the UK and 3 joining Eire)
2. The principle of consent is not defined - presumably it could be via a Stormont vote or a referendum. But it covers changes to the GFA/constitutional changes but not whether NI is in the U.K. or RoI0 -
Stop taking the mick out of Hartlepool. Only those of us who live there or within 30 miles get to do that!Foxy said:
Keep up! Free trade is no longer a good thing. The EU FTA with Japan is why Nissan made the decision.Roger said:
Hear Hear! Twats! We lose free trade with the largest trading block in the world and access to free trade with the 50 other countries the EU have deals with. Who needs them?Philip_Thompson said:
Says the same people who said leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.TOPPING said:
Almost as if someone realises that such a move would be an absolute fucking catastrophe.gypsumfantastic said:
So, what's the problem then? We leave, No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we voted to leave the EU.gypsumfantastic said:
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
Two World wars and One World cup!!!
They can F-off!!
Harry from Hartlepool
Haartlepool demands protective tarrifs and fortress England!0 -
'Wheat fields' I think and we do not have a garden that big !!!!Jonathan said:
Keep an eye on her and don’t let her out into the garden. She will cause havoc running through your herbaceous borders.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I hope she consults me next time._Anazina_ said:Jonathan said:
Predictable because it is grounded in bitter truth. We would have more luck getting imagination out of a dead goat than Theresa May.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Rather predictable response. It is Merkel saying it tonight, not TMJonathan said:
A creative solution. Step forward May. Oh dear.Big_G_NorthWales said:Merkel has just said that the backstop is a riddle that needs a creative solution in an indication the door is being left open and the EU are looking at a solution
I expect an immediate rebuttal that this is hogwash but I am only the messenger and she is talking about it and not saying 'nein'
When May goes walking in Wales, she consults the dead goat population for ideas.
She and Philip can have a nice cup of tea and a chat with both my wife and I
We are close to the mountains and only 3 hours by train from Downing Street
Mind you a cuppa on our patio overlooking our garden would be fine0 -
(Sorry, I was looking for an excuse to work in an Oasis song lyric...Philip_Thompson said:
Where have I asked for an extension or not shown a pair?viewcode said:
Then leave. Man up, grow a pair, and walk proudly to independence. Stop blaming others and asking for extensions. Take what you need, go on your way, and stop crying your heart out...Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.TOPPING said:
"All the UK would have to do..."Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. All the UK would have to do would be to show it had procedures in place of its own choosing to ensure it met WTO requirements. The WTO does not dictate what those procedures are. Their only interest is the ends not the means. It also, crucially, does not dictate that the same systems have to be in place at all entry points, just that the overall effect is the same. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the UK to argue that the checks it would have regarding the Irish border would not be suitable for other non land borders. As long as the UK could claim the overall result was the same then they would be in accord with the WTO rules.TOPPING said:
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).
Yep that's all. Two years trying to square this circle and yet it turns out it's a piece of piss to solve. I would be interested in the details of this trifle of sovereignty. And so would Theresa May and Sammy Wilson.
(...and if you can do it by the 29th then that would be great...
)
I'm OK with leaving without a deal on March 29th. I'm fine with it. Its not ideal, but shit happens.
I also think the EU will see sense before then, but if they don't, so be it! ) 0 -
But we're not tied in.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we voted to leave the EU.gypsumfantastic said:
Quick reminder that the UK voted to leave the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The issue has nothing to do with squaring circles, or unicorns. It is solely and exclusively about the EU trying to subjugate and bully the UK because it thinks it can get away with it.
We've done this all to ourselves.
End of story. We didn't vote to remain tied indefinitely into an EU via a backstop.
If the EU does not act in good faith in implementing the technological solution, then we announce that we will no longer be bound by the treaty.
Right now, you're suggesting we deliberately break our WTO treaty commitments, so that we don't have to break off the WA treaty agreements if the EU doesn't hold up its side of the bargain.
Why is it OK to break WTO treaty commitments (when the WTO has done no wrong), but not OK to break the backstop agreement in the event the EU did do wrong?0 -
I've raised this in the past when people have raised the issue of an open border in Ireland post Brexit, managed by a technological solution and I have asked several times the following questions:
a) Has it been done anywhere?
b) How do you stop fraud? What is to stop me ignoring the electronic declaration and just swanning through. Customs checks aren't there to slow down those obeying the rules. That is an unfortunate side effect. They are there to catch or deter those breaking the rules.
c) Presumably we are going to reintroduce carnets. One quote I saw 'was given a choice between completing a carnet and root canal it is the dentist every time'. I certainly didn't have pleasant experiences in the past with just small items. Imagine a rock band going on the road; nightmare. What would you do in Ireland where you go back and forth. With no checks I'm guessing they will just be ignored. How do you determine the difference between a temporary and proper export then?0 -
Thanks I will take a look.Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.0 -
0
-
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....0 -
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....0 -
Sobering thought - that - with one possible exception - everybody shown in that clip is now dead.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=210 -
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
The one thing everyone proposing a 'techincal' solution always forgets is the bureaucratic burden that goes along with it. A Brexit motivated by avoiding red tape will involve a frenzy of new red tape.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....0 -
Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.0
-
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
It works well in may other countries. Switzerland does chose to have spot checks at the border but the actual rules say they can take place at any point within 20 miles of the border on either side.kjh said:I've raised this in the past when people have raised the issue of an open border in Ireland post Brexit, managed by a technological solution and I have asked several times the following questions:
a) Has it been done anywhere?
b) How do you stop fraud? What is to stop me ignoring the electronic declaration and just swanning through. Customs checks aren't there to slow down those obeying the rules. That is an unfortunate side effect. They are there to catch or deter those breaking the rules.
c) Presumably we are going to reintroduce carnets. One quote I saw 'was given a choice between completing a carnet and root canal it is the dentist every time'. I certainly didn't have pleasant experiences in the past with just small items. Imagine a rock band going on the road; nightmare. What would you do in Ireland where you go back and forth. With no checks I'm guessing they will just be ignored. How do you determine the difference between a temporary and proper export then?0 -
They make clear at the start and the end that the technologies for everything they suggest already exist.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....0 -
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
0 -
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?Richard_Tyndall said:
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....0 -
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.El_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
Went to the Dreilandereck (the point where France, Germany and Switzerland meet) in Basel last year. Looking at the border crossings, the crossings from France into Switzerland and from Germany into Switzerland seemed to work well for vehicles (Switzerland is in Schengen too of course) with some lorries stopped for customs checks and as has been said random checks deeper into Switzerland.Richard_Tyndall said:
It works well in may other countries. Switzerland does chose to have spot checks at the border but the actual rules say they can take place at any point within 20 miles of the border on either side.
So you have a situation where passports aren't checked (Schengen) but there are customs checks and inspections so lorries are held while cars are generally waved through.
0 -
And Canada.Foxy said:
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
I do believe that their aim has been to try and make Brexit as difficult as possible and to frustrate any attempt at a clean break. They are self serving politicians just like ours. They are just a bit (okay a lot) more competent than ours.TOPPING said:
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?Richard_Tyndall said:
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
The UK, to their shame, would do exactly the same thing when Scotland tries to leave. Except our bunch of politicians would be more inept.0 -
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
Canada is metric as wellFoxy said:
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem.
It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls.
These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.0 -
But why hasn't Theresa May done the I have a piece of paper thing yet brandishing those technical specs and making sure every media outlet knows she is keen to take this forward?Richard_Tyndall said:
I do believe that their aim has been to try and make Brexit as difficult as possible and to frustrate any attempt at a clean break. They are self serving politicians just like ours. They are just a bit (okay a lot) more competent than ours.TOPPING said:
So the reason it hasn't been embraced by the EU is solely on account of their stubborn desire to maintain us under their jackbooted yoke of oppression?Richard_Tyndall said:
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasior trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
The UK, to their shame, would do exactly the same thing when Scotland tries to leave. Except our bunch of politicians would be more inept.0 -
Only the US, Liberia, Burma and (partially) the UK don't use the metric system.Richard_Tyndall said:
Canada is metric as wellFoxy said:
Though we are still not metric, though the "Anglosphere" in Oz and NZ are...justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
Our lifetimes are naturally more accessible to us than the time even just before our birth, though.justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
He's now a salesman for border consultancy services.Richard_Tyndall said:
The author is a Former Director of World Customs Organization and Deputy Director General of Swedish Customs. Hardly a young student.TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
http://www.kghborders.com/en/about-border-services/why-kgh.aspx0 -
Gardenwalker said:
Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
That was also my understanding. Surprised to hear this factoid about a metric enclave near the Welsh Border! Great PB fact if true.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
My good lady was born in the late 1930's and is 80 this year bless herjustin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
See my last comment about ineptness. Mind you my abiding disgust and disdain for May, completely unrelated to Brexit, means I find it difficult to imagine she is capable of anything that does not involve hurting other people.TOPPING said:
But why hasn't Theresa May done the I have a piece of paper thing yet brandishing those technical specs and making sure every media outlet knows she is keen to take this forward?0 -
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
0 -
This does not bode well for our universities’ finances...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/norway-students-uk-universities-brexit-warning0 -
Interesting. In a poll 85% don't trust their MPs on Brexit but only 75% don't trust the EU on Brexit.0
-
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.ralphmalph said:
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.El_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.0 -
Height signs on low bridges etc are often in both systems now, as without a metric version there'd be a lot more non-British trucks hitting them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
That indeed is true. I am also having to come to terms with the fact that my present age - 64.5 - was the average male life expectancy here in the UK at the time of the 1953 Coronation!Nigelb said:
Our lifetimes are naturally more accessible to us than the time even just before our birth, though.justin124 said:Time does play its tricks on the memory as we get older . I find it incredible to have to accept the reality that the clip shown relates to events closer to 1938 - the Anschluss and later Chamberlain returning from Munich - than to the present day! Yet it seems a mere few years ago - but in 1978 the late 1930s felt like a different age.
0 -
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others._Anazina_ said:
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.0 -
This is a frankly idiotic argument.matthiasfromhamburg said:
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem.
It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls.
These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.
We start from a position where we are fully aligned as far as phytosanitary and sanitary rules are concerned with no requirement for checking between countries within the EU.
It is blindingly obvious that the answer to this issue would be mutual recognition of standards and certification as long as neither side change their standards. At the point at which either side chooses to tighten or reduce standards then there would be a discussion on this and a decision made on whether either side disagrees enough to want to introduce checks at the border.
Of course I am working from a basic assumption that neither the UK nor EU are going to set out to poison their own population and, by extension, that of the other party... though perhaps there are some suicidal Hard Brexiteers out there who would think it worthwhile just to take down a Frenchman.
Again this is not a practical issue but purely one of political will.0 -
Really - 85% dont trust our mps and 'only' 75% don't trust the EU.Roger said:Interesting. In a poll 85% don't trust their MPs on Brexit but only 75% don't trust the EU on Brexit.
That is still 3 out of every 4 do not trust the EU.
Hardly an endorsement for the EU0 -
On the railway distances are measured in miles and chains, apart from HS1 which is in kilometers.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.0 -
Interesting.matthiasfromhamburg said:
The WTO issue is not that it could instruct us to create a border in Northern Ireland.
It is that if we deliberately go out of our way not to collect tariffs, then we will have cases brought against us by (for example) Argentinian beef farmers who would claim that we allowed beef from Ireland in tariff free despite the absence of an FTA, and therefore its farmers should get the same treatment.
This is why there is all the discussion about the "technology" solution. I.e., a system for tracking goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland, and ensuring that tariffs are paid and that standards are met.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement such a system. It is not even beyond the wit of man to have it in place in two years time*.
The issue is merely one about whether the EU is being sincere or not in its desire for a technological solution.
It seems to me that if they are, then the backstop is no issue, because it will go soon enough. And if they are not sincere, then we are well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty.
* Of course, government IT projects don't have the best record for being completed on time, or budget. But that's a different issue.
It is not beyond the wit of man to design and implement systems which could ensure that tariffs are paid, but the customs procedures are only one (very minor) part of the Irish border problem.
It is today, and probably for at least another generation, beyond the wit of man to develop and implement a technological solution for the major part of the problem i.e. the sanitary and phytosanitary controls.
These are indeed the major part, if measured by impact on the flow of trade or by crucial importance for public life in general and the integrity of the market in particular, and as there is no 'sanitary and phytosanitary super-duper x-ray scan' in development, let alone available, which could conceivably peek into a milk truck crossing the border to count the germs in a litre of milk, there is no technical solution available.
This has been explained numerous times by EU officials as well as a wide range of UK trade experts all across the ideological divide from Anand Menon to Richard North, but Brexiteers keep incessantly droning on about the prospect of technological solutions for the minor part of the problem, which have never been denied - in fact the EU has been the major driver for such solutions globally, to further increase trade efficiency - but continually fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even realise) the major problem.0 -
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
I thought Feynman showed that the failure was to do directly with the brittleness of the fuel line seals when subjected to sub zero temperatures. He did the famous showman bit at the enquiry where he put a supposedly flexible seal in a glass of iced water and then snapped it.SeanT said:
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.Casino_Royale said:
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
The metrication/API error was ploughing into mars with a lander.0 -
HS1 is for all practical purposes a French Ligne á Grande Vitesse.Verulamius said:
On the railway distances are measured in miles and chains, apart from HS1 which is in kilometers.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.0 -
I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.0
-
In athletics the 1500m gets called the metric mile, and the actual mile rarely gets run.rpjs said:
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.Casino_Royale said:
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others._Anazina_ said:
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.0 -
Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.0 -
At it's age now, it is woodworm!Theuniondivvie said:
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.ralphmalph said:
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.El_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
You should never mix any units in a project. That’s retarded. They should all be SI for calculating something like that.SeanT said:
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.Casino_Royale said:
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
It’s happened elsewhere as well. Planes have crashed because the fuellers got confused and only filled up the number in pounds when it should have been in kilos.
I’ve found kilometres equally weird in Canada. On the plus side, the pint is still going strong as a concept internationally, even if you usually do get cheated of the extra 68ml.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_OrbiterSeanT said:
Yes, but wasn't there some evidence that the Space Shuttle explosion was because of US scientists and engineers mixing SI with Imperial and fitting a wrongly-sized widget? So the confusion isn't always charming and benign.Casino_Royale said:
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.
So no loss of life, but expensive.0 -
The article appears to be lacking any kind of logical thread. It talks about uncertainty regarding the Erasmus program.Nigelb said:This does not bode well for our universities’ finances...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/norway-students-uk-universities-brexit-warning
"But Nybø said there were still concerns about the future of Erasmus for Norwegians, as Norway is not a member of the EU. ”
Isn't that ... err .. the responsibility of Norway? It is certainly nothing to do with Brexit.
It looks like Guardian scaremongering.
After Brexit, Norway and the UK will be associate members of Erasmus (as are a whole host of other non-EU countries).0 -
I grew up in the 70s and in some ways failed to properly learn both systems. Higher ambient temperatures make more sense to me in Fahrenheit - "in the 70s" sounds warm - but lower ambient temps make more sense to me in Celsius. Despite living in the US for eight years now, 32F just doesn't mean freezing to me!Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0 -
The mileage signs would have been, erm, miles out. But otherwise I tend to agree. We could and should have just metricated our units, as most of the major ones match up nicely to a metric unit. A foot would have been trickier, but even that could have been standardised to 300mmrpjs said:
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow._Anazina_ said:
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.Casino_Royale said:
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others._Anazina_ said:
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.0 -
At the height of Imperial units the most you could expect to live was three score and ten years. Today, after metrification a lifespan of 100 years is possible.0
-
I think the current situation is that kilometers are still foreign but meters are becoming acceptably britishSeanT said:
Kilometres do seem very foreign though. I am always startled by the use of them in Ireland and Oz.0 -
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0 -
Okay you got me. Height too._Anazina_ said:
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0 -
I'm sure I heard Geoffrey Howe once say they abandoned actively promoting metrication under Thatcher, as they believed it had largely been completed.Casino_Royale said:
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow._Anazina_ said:
Sorry, I was referring to your response to Sean where he pointed out that it’s illegal to use metric on highway signs - that regulation is the UK’s, not the EU’s.Casino_Royale said:
Metrication was also a UK Goverment initiative in some areas, but EEC/EU directives obligated it in many others._Anazina_ said:
That’s the UK’s regulation - nothing to do with the EU.Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
One mild credit to the EU: they finally stopped making it compulsory for the UK in 2009. But, it was too little too late. Had they been more accommodating in other areas of federalisation then the UK probably wouldn’t have left.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.
Although I may have hallucinated.0 -
My mum had a Minor so it was rust that got it in the end. God, she loved that car.ralphmalph said:
At it's age now, it is woodworm!Theuniondivvie said:
Careful, all that timber means the Traveller can light up in seconds.ralphmalph said:
Tell me where and I will be straight into the Morris Traveller with jerry cans of petrol to sort them out.El_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.0 -
The standard Imperial units of area are
Tennis court
Football pitch
Isle of Wight
Wales0 -
Not a fan of horse racing, are you?Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0 -
I note that the Irish and Australians have standardised a pint at 570ml. A bonus 2ml on ours!Casino_Royale said:
You should never mix any units in a project. That’s retarded. They should all be SI for calculating something like that.SeanT said:
SnipCasino_Royale said:
They are much more interesting, diverse, historic and characterful. Slightly more human, good for estimating and rather evocative. Not so good for scientific calculations, and that’s where you use SI, but it’s horses for courses, isn’t it? I think we have the best of both worlds.SeanT said:
Yes, a bit of Googling says I am right. It is illegal to have traffic/road signs giving distance in metric units. However, you CAN use metric when indicating width (of tunnels etc). Brilliantly absurd.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly official road signage including distance markers (I suppose for the obvious reason that it should be all or nothing to avoid confusion). Pretty sure that it is okay for non-highways stuff though. So I think a local council signpost with distances to local landmarks for tourists would be absolutely fine.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
Local authorities apparently need special dispensation to use metres and kms on ANY distance signs, and some have been successfully prosecuted and forced to replace metres with yards.
Hooray for YARDS. Bring back the furlong, rod and pole.
And, I mildly enjoy confusing my wife with them.
It’s happened elsewhere as well. Planes have crashed because the fuellers got confused and only filled up the number in pounds when it should have been in kilos.
I’ve found kilometres equally weird in Canada. On the plus side, the pint is still going strong as a concept internationally, even if you usually do get cheated of the extra 68ml.0 -
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.Jonathan said:Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Chill. It’s all good.0 -
They should make metrication a requirement when Britain tries to rejoin the EU. Obviously practically better, and requires an unambiguous commitment to stop pandering to nostalgic old people.Casino_Royale said:
It is, at present, but under the old European Communities Act 1972 if the EU had agreed a directive for metrification in that area under the auspices of completing the single market then the UK would have been obligated to follow.
I suspect the UK quietly shelved it and convinced the EU it wasn’t a big deal and not to push for it.0 -
I haven’t read this but he was on radio 4 the other day and was pretty sure of himself. Former Swedish customs officer no not just “an Imperial student”TOPPING said:
I have yet to read it but imagine the fame of a young Imperial student who announces: here it is. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet.eek said:
A single quote from within section "6.3.2 The proposed solution" .... "should"Richard_Tyndall said:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdfTOPPING said:
Can you please link to it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
They are already designed and there was a report commissioned by the EU itself which set out exactly how they could work. I have linked to it on a number of occasions on here. They would certainly satisfy the WTO as they are used in other areas but it seems they will not satisfy the EU - of course because they do not want a technical solution. The whole issue of the Irish border, as Robert points out in his reply, is not one of technology, or trade or the WTO but one of EU sincerity.TOPPING said:
What are you talking about? I have been making the point that Richard made for the past year (about how it could be that cases could be brought against us).
As for the technologies. Well all so simple why don't you go and make yourself a few million by designing it for them. Why on earth do you think that everyone seems to think it doesn't exist?
And finally you said that all we had to do was assure the WTO that all was well but you haven't said what exactly those assurances would be apart from "it'll all be fine."
Not your usual standard Richard.
Unfortunately they have badly misjudged the whole situation and are about to cause the one thing they claimed not to want all along. Even more unfortunately we will suffer as a result as well.
So my immediate take away from the document is that a technical solution doesn't yet exist and even the requirements aren't detailed yet....
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf
0 -
Bet you also measure your trousers and shirts in inches. We really aren’t very metric in a whole bunch of areas.Gallowgate said:
Okay you got me. Height too._Anazina_ said:
Really? So when someone asks how tall you are, you say 180cm (or whatever). Most people wouldn’t grasp how tall that was.Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0 -
CANZUK will be metric.Casino_Royale said:
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.Jonathan said:Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Chill. It’s all good.
Catch up with the modern world.0 -
I love the imperfection of it; that’s partly the point. Also, there’s a good argument that base unit 12 (or 60) is better for mental arithmetic than the somewhat more robotic base unit 10.rpjs said:
If you ask for a "livre" in a French market, or a "pfund" in German one, you'll get a half-kilo of whatever it is you want. I don't know why we couldn't have done the same: one "metric pound" = 500g, one "metric pint" = 0.5l, one "metric mile" = 2 km. Yeah, the distance signs wouldn't have been exactly accurate but do they really have to be?Casino_Royale said:
It’s just that sort of thing that started to piss a lot of people off about the EEC and then EU.SeanT said:
I could be wrong, but I think it is actually illegal in the UK to have signs in kms, metres, etcEl_Capitano said:
A bunch of km signs were actually installed in a small corner of Gloucestershire, and many are still there today.kyf_100 said:
A beautiful example of the old eec in action.Gardenwalker said:Posted without comment.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209?s=21
Nobody forced us to switch from mph to.kmh and indeed we're on the same standard now. Back when Europe was about trading with each other rather than "harmonising" everything.
We’ve never decimalised time.
Most of it is what you’re used to but, if you’re not calculating, why homogenise and lose all that humanness, history, tradition and character?0 -
It seems metrication was a UK idea. Pre-dating our EEC entry by some years. It ended as an official policy quango in 1981.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_Board0 -
Can I have fall out radius from Faslane?Jonathan said:The standard Imperial units of area are
Tennis court
Football pitch
Isle of Wight
Wales0 -
Square feet for propertyCasino_Royale said:
They’re certainly not “insane” and nor are they best confined to the bin.Jonathan said:Miles and pints are the only Imperial measure worth keeping and that’s only for sentimental reasons.
The rest are insane anachronisms best consigned to the bin.
Height measured in feet and inches makes sense, aeroplanes use feet and knots, and we measure our weight in stones and pounds, and babies in pounds and ounces. Acres are still widely used too.
Chill. It’s all good.
Inches for clothing sizes and TV screens
Furlongs for horse races
Imperial remains the standard in many areas — that is simply a fact.0 -
Most of us still speak about our weight in stones and pounds, our height in feet and inches, our fuel economy in miles to the gallon, distance in miles, drinks in pints, engine power in horsepower, Land in acres, thread count in fabric threads per square inch. We still very much think in imperial measurements. Mind you I’m 50 so can’t speak for the younger generationrpjs said:
I grew up in the 70s and in some ways failed to properly learn both systems. Higher ambient temperatures make more sense to me in Fahrenheit - "in the 70s" sounds warm - but lower ambient temps make more sense to me in Celsius. Despite living in the US for eight years now, 32F just doesn't mean freezing to me!Gallowgate said:I’m 26, UK born and raised, and I measure nothing in imperial units apart from alcoholic drinks, speed and penis size (heh). I can hardly comprehend what a stone or a yard is to be honest.
0
