Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Russia Report doesn’t look like a damp squib

2456

Comments

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,194

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    Trafalgar tries to adjust for shy Trump supporters, and has more aggressive turnout filtering that other pollsters.

    Georgia has also been very aggressive at reducing the number of polling stations in black neighbourhoods, which will probably have a meaningful impact on the result. If you're going to queue for an hour or two to vote, that is effectively a voting tax, as your time is valuable.

    I personally think that both GA and AZ will be a stretch for the Democrats, although I expect Mark Kelly to beat out Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race.
    Yes, efforts by the Russians, or anybody else, to interfere in USA elections pale in comparison to Trump's concerted efforts to suppress the anti-Trump vote through all sorts of shenanigans, including as in Georgia that you mention. I think this will be the big story in the USA for the next 6 months. On Newsnight last night, somebody (sorry, can't remember her name) was saying that a large proportion of Democrat donations was being spent on lawyers rather than campaigning. This vote rigging, which it is in effect, is absolutely scandalous, and more of an affront to democracy than any bots on social media.
    Yes, both sides are gearing up the lawyers to contest the results, especially given the likely scale of Mail-in voting. It will make 2000 seem like a walk in the park if there is a close election
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    While undoubtedly true is it not also true that now the UK will have a voice in those iso committees rather than as currently the eu alone sits on them
    I think you exaggerate how contentious most ISO discussions are. I can think of just one example - standardisation of colorings of fire extinguisher types - where we have disagreed with ISO standards in the last quarter century. And I'm not sure our voice would have changed the eventual result.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,974

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    Trafalgar tries to adjust for shy Trump supporters, and has more aggressive turnout filtering that other pollsters.

    Georgia has also been very aggressive at reducing the number of polling stations in black neighbourhoods, which will probably have a meaningful impact on the result. If you're going to queue for an hour or two to vote, that is effectively a voting tax, as your time is valuable.

    I personally think that both GA and AZ will be a stretch for the Democrats, although I expect Mark Kelly to beat out Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race.
    Yes, efforts by the Russians, or anybody else, to interfere in USA elections pale in comparison to Trump's concerted efforts to suppress the anti-Trump vote through all sorts of shenanigans, including as in Georgia that you mention. I think this will be the big story in the USA for the next 6 months. On Newsnight last night, somebody (sorry, can't remember her name) was saying that a large proportion of Democrat donations was being spent on lawyers rather than campaigning. This vote rigging, which it is in effect, is absolutely scandalous, and more of an affront to democracy than any bots on social media.
    Are the lawyers needed to contest these alleged vote suppression initiatives in the courts?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,865
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,893
    edited July 21

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Off topic and apologies if quoted before but good poll for Trump in Georgia

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/14b1jw1EuSpo90_kwZJKiSjHMQ378jFoA/view

    Looks like a slightly heavier female weighting as well

    Trafalgar tries to adjust for shy Trump supporters, and has more aggressive turnout filtering that other pollsters.

    Georgia has also been very aggressive at reducing the number of polling stations in black neighbourhoods, which will probably have a meaningful impact on the result. If you're going to queue for an hour or two to vote, that is effectively a voting tax, as your time is valuable.

    I personally think that both GA and AZ will be a stretch for the Democrats, although I expect Mark Kelly to beat out Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race.
    Yes, efforts by the Russians, or anybody else, to interfere in USA elections pale in comparison to Trump's concerted efforts to suppress the anti-Trump vote through all sorts of shenanigans, including as in Georgia that you mention. I think this will be the big story in the USA for the next 6 months. On Newsnight last night, somebody (sorry, can't remember her name) was saying that a large proportion of Democrat donations was being spent on lawyers rather than campaigning. This vote rigging, which it is in effect, is absolutely scandalous, and more of an affront to democracy than any bots on social media.
    Terrible. If the election is Biden by miles - which is my view - it won't make a difference to whether Trump goes but if it's close ... ??

  • Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    What does "mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight" mean?

    The agreement found at the Council is - in its entirety - subject to approval by the directly elected European Parliament.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    Being more serious @rcs1000 looking at that Smarties packaging it reveals a very serious product standard difference between the USA and Canada. Packaging in general is Canada is subject to Canadian law that it must be dual-languaged in both English and French. Hence on that picture "new package!" becomes "neuveau emballage!" on that packaging too.

    A minor difference sure, but as far as I understand everything across the entire country is subject to that whereas that obviously isn't the case in the USA. If Americans want to export their products for sale on Canadian shops they have to comply with that law as far as I understand.

    Smarties are not product standards! There is no standard of Smarties defined by ISO code. It is simply a trademark issue.

    Smarties is a registered trademark in Canada of an American firm which is owned by the parents of a friend of my daughter!
  • matthiasfromhamburgmatthiasfromhamburg Posts: 872
    edited July 21
    rcs1000 said:


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    As a further aside, the "recovery fund" was agreed unanimously by the governments of the (remaining) EU countries. So, while you might say "we wouldn't have gone for it", it's hard to say why 27 countries agreeing to raise funds at the EU level is undemocratic.
    As I already replied to Wulfrun Phil, it's not a done deal yet. The whole thing - in its entirety - is subject to the approval of the directly elected European Parliament. Calling that "undemocratic", "totalitarian" or "ceasaropapist" is utterly risible.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,597
    Now for something different.

    NHS England case data - daily cases per 100,000

    as ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision etc....

    image
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,251
    edited July 21
    Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    It makes no odds in any case. Even if the report had definitive proof of successful Russian interference in either Brexit or the elections, we would just be told "We won. Suck it up losers".

    They do not give a **** as long as they are in charge. The end, apparently, justifies the means.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,364

    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image

    Where did the 30 who died yesterday die? There are so far zero deaths in hospitals recorded for yesterday and the total figure is likely to be below 10. Hospitals are empty, why are we letting people die at home. Or are PHE figures just nonsense?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,597

    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image

    Where did the 30 who died yesterday die? There are so far zero deaths in hospitals recorded for yesterday and the total figure is likely to be below 10. Hospitals are empty, why are we letting people die at home. Or are PHE figures just nonsense?
    Well, people with health effects from COVID may go home and then die, later.
    Or someone gets the sniffles, heart attack, positive test.
    Or they are being murdered by a demented lawyer with a baseball bat, dressed in his wife's kimono.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU is a supra-national body dedicated to an ever closer union among member states. It's there in the first paragraph of their constitution.

    So what a shame it was that we couldn't secure some kind of opt out from all that leaving us in an advantageous cake situation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605
    edited July 21

    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image

    Where did the 30 who died yesterday die? There are so far zero deaths in hospitals recorded for yesterday and the total figure is likely to be below 10. Hospitals are empty, why are we letting people die at home. Or are PHE figures just nonsense?
    My guess is it will be care home residents who have recovered from the virus and died of natural causes because they're old and on deaths door anyway and PHE are erroneously counting them as COVID19 deaths.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,233
    rcs1000 said:


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    As a further aside, the "recovery fund" was agreed unanimously by the governments of the (remaining) EU countries. So, while you might say "we wouldn't have gone for it", it's hard to say why 27 countries agreeing to raise funds at the EU level is undemocratic.
    I saw your message last night about EU debt, I know that the EU sells paper, but the funds are not allowed to be used for direct grants to nation states. That's why the federalists are calling this a huge step towards the federalised state. The treaties specifically rule out spending of proceeds of bond sales on grant funds, that will need to be addressed and I expect the 2028 repayment start by the nations who are receiving the funds from the borrowed money is part of the solution to show that this is just a temporary and one off measure, not that the EU is seeking to usurp national debt sales.

    What I really don't understand is why France are getting €40bn in loans and grants. Italy and Spain I understand to a certain extent but France is an odd choice for grant and loan funding, they are now the second largest economy within the EU, they shouldn't need bailout funds. Unless Macron is looking to tie his own reforms into the receipt of this money and blaming the measures on the EU. Would be a clever way of finally get getting pension and labour reforms through.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,597

    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image

    Where did the 30 who died yesterday die? There are so far zero deaths in hospitals recorded for yesterday and the total figure is likely to be below 10. Hospitals are empty, why are we letting people die at home. Or are PHE figures just nonsense?
    My guess is it will be care home residents who have recovered from the virus and died of natural causes because they're old and on deaths door anyway and PHE are erroneously counting them as COVID19 deaths.
    But we should check the security cameras for demented lawyers, just to be sure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,856

    TOPPING said:


    You are missing the point Richard.

    To have a duplicate, meaningless, and onerous set of regulations was always the Brexiters' aim.

    So that we can say we have our own standards.

    That bonkers.

    Ah yes, silly me. It was all about getting rid of EU red tape, so that we could tie ourselves up in massively increased amounts of red tape of our own creation (and still be subject to the EU red tape as well, of course).
    Don't forget it then gives us the opportunity to align the two systems a bit in five to ten years' time, and claim we're doing business a favour.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    England deaths - all settings

    Today they announced 112

    Yesterday - 30
    Seven day average - 38

    Note how the much of todays report goes to filling the weekend gap.

    image

    Where did the 30 who died yesterday die? There are so far zero deaths in hospitals recorded for yesterday and the total figure is likely to be below 10. Hospitals are empty, why are we letting people die at home. Or are PHE figures just nonsense?
    My guess is it will be care home residents who have recovered from the virus and died of natural causes because they're old and on deaths door anyway and PHE are erroneously counting them as COVID19 deaths.
    Some of them will also be from some time ago.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    As a further aside, the "recovery fund" was agreed unanimously by the governments of the (remaining) EU countries. So, while you might say "we wouldn't have gone for it", it's hard to say why 27 countries agreeing to raise funds at the EU level is undemocratic.
    I saw your message last night about EU debt, I know that the EU sells paper, but the funds are not allowed to be used for direct grants to nation states. That's why the federalists are calling this a huge step towards the federalised state. The treaties specifically rule out spending of proceeds of bond sales on grant funds, that will need to be addressed and I expect the 2028 repayment start by the nations who are receiving the funds from the borrowed money is part of the solution to show that this is just a temporary and one off measure, not that the EU is seeking to usurp national debt sales.

    What I really don't understand is why France are getting €40bn in loans and grants. Italy and Spain I understand to a certain extent but France is an odd choice for grant and loan funding, they are now the second largest economy within the EU, they shouldn't need bailout funds. Unless Macron is looking to tie his own reforms into the receipt of this money and blaming the measures on the EU. Would be a clever way of finally get getting pension and labour reforms through.
    That's a fair point: also, the scale of the fund is massive compared to existing EU debt. It is definitely a federalising step.

    Re Macron: I think the French are quite transactional (which is one of the reasons Macron and Trump get on). Simply, they've said "sure we'll play along, but it has to be financially worth our while."
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,029

    Now for something different.

    NHS England case data - daily cases per 100,000

    as ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision etc....

    image

    Sheffield and particularly Birmingham plummet down the chart due to both being huge LAs by population.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,865
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU is a supra-national body dedicated to an ever closer union among member states. It's there in the first paragraph of their constitution.

    So what a shame it was that we couldn't secure some kind of opt out from all that leaving us in an advantageous cake situation.
    Any opt outs we might have secured would have been meaningless. The EU could not continue on its chosen path with one member holding out against it and in the end we would have been forced to choose between accepting all the federalisation or leaving. And the longer we stayed in the harder it would become to leave.

    Leaving when we did was the only realistic option.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,161

    rcs1000 said:


    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.

    Yes, you are right. In the relatively recent past, there was a nightmare of lots of different national standards, which of course acted as a barrier to trade. The EU swept all of that away in Europe, to everyone's benefit; in practice, nowadays manufacturers only have to consider the US and EU standards to cover most of the world.

    Quite why we'd want to be the only country in the world going backwards to the old fragmented system is anyone's guess, but what is clear is that the rest of the world is unlikely to bother with a UK-only standard. Any UK exporter is going to have to conform to EU and/or US rules; if they also have to conform to UK-specific rules for their home market, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. And if we don't want accept EU standards, we'll have to pay more for the extra cost and hassle for the manufacturer - if they bother at all.
    Actually being outside but next door to the uniform standards puts us at a competitive advantage. Just like being outside but next door to the single currency.

    It means that our exporters know what they have to deal with. They can export to the whole of the EU based on one spec and don't need to mess around with different specs per nation. They can export to almost the whole of the EU with one currency.

    But we retain the right to change standards where it is in our own interest. We retain the right to change our currency, our interest rates, have our own QE etc where it is in our interests.

    Best of both worlds.
    TBH I find the issue of standards pretty meaningless. The UK can choose to align with the EU where necessary and I expect that still to happen in 99% of cases, or even in 100% initially while things settle down.

    This by contrast is what would worry me, if we had not managed to get off those tramlines leading to every closer union:

    "The Commission will have powers to raise large funds on the capital markets for the first time and to direct how the spending is allocated, turning this strange hybrid creature into an even more extraordinary institution. Where else in the world does a single unelected body have the ‘right of initiative’ on legislation, and the executive powers of a proto-government, and the spending prerogatives of a parliament, all wrapped in one? It is Caesaropapist, bordering on totalitarian in constitutional terms, mostly unchecked by meaningful parliamentary oversight."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/21/europes-750bn-recovery-fund-economic-pop-gun-political-howitzer/
    As a further aside, the "recovery fund" was agreed unanimously by the governments of the (remaining) EU countries. So, while you might say "we wouldn't have gone for it", it's hard to say why 27 countries agreeing to raise funds at the EU level is undemocratic.
    As I already replied to Wulfrun Phil, it's not a done deal yet. The whole thing - in its entirety - is subject to the approval of the directly elected European Parliament. Calling that "undemocratic", "totalitarian" or "ceasaropapist" is utterly risible.
    The only resemblence of the European "Parliament" to the reality of one that exerts meaningful control over the EU executive is in its name. It's useful only as a means of pulling wool over eyes. I find it utterly risible that you can equate the workings of that institution to anything comparable to standards of democratic norms. It is a done deal, you could tell by the celebrations last night. The Commission know they're not going to be sent back to the drawing board on EU budget proposals, just because they never are. There'll be a few assurances given in debate and it'll go through with as a big majority as ever. And now that the EU budget is sorted for the next 7 long years (no less!), and the power of veto exercised by the likes of the Dutch has gone, not even the governments of member countries will have much influence over what is done with the cash.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,521
    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU is a supra-national body dedicated to an ever closer union among member states. It's there in the first paragraph of their constitution.

    So what a shame it was that we couldn't secure some kind of opt out from all that leaving us in an advantageous cake situation.
    Any opt outs we might have secured would have been meaningless. The EU could not continue on its chosen path with one member holding out against it and in the end we would have been forced to choose between accepting all the federalisation or leaving. And the longer we stayed in the harder it would become to leave.

    Leaving when we did was the only realistic option.
    I think they were happy to tolerate our cussedness and we were happy to reap the benefits also.

    Both sides for the greater good of their own interests.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,233

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    midges?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,856
    .
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    Self esteem. A bit like no longer having to pay 1/7th of the 32,000 EU employees, as someone (contrarian?) posted on the last thread, to gain the privilege of having to pay 50,000 custom officials (among other things) soon.
    I think I've already grown an inch. Brexiters far more of course.
    Yes, great excitement can do that for you...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,694


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    Isaac Newton. Optics, gravity, motion, calculus (invented to explain planetary orbits). And then, to quote Neil de Grasse Tyson, and then he turned 26. @TSE will be along soon to remind us which university Newton attended.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    Isaac Newton. Optics, gravity, motion, calculus (invented to explain planetary orbits). And then, to quote Neil de Grasse Tyson, and then he turned 26. @TSE will be along soon to remind us which university Newton attended.
    Sadly his attempts to make gold from lead were not entirely successful.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,793
    edited July 21

    <<James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!) >>

    Einstein's associate and correspondent Caratheodory could do with a little more attention, too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Carathéodory
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 1,332

    Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    It makes no odds in any case. Even if the report had definitive proof of successful Russian interference in either Brexit or the elections, we would just be told "We won. Suck it up losers".

    They do not give a **** as long as they are in charge. The end, apparently, justifies the means.
    An awful lot of the British constitution depends on it being operated by decent chaps. If you're shameless enough, the possibilities are enormous.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 36,357

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    The hostile attitude to the English from the SNP and sometimes in evidence here hung a 'no welcome' sign to Scotland tourist industry from many English tourists who do not need the hassle and have plenty of lovely places to spend a staycation in England and Wales
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,071
    edited July 21


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    I'd just like to put in a word for Emmy Noethe. Another brilliant German Jew, and also a women from a time when woman were largely excluded from academic studies, she overcame the barriers placed in her way to show how conservation laws arise from symmetries. This is absolutely fundamental, and explains why laws such as the conservation of momentum and energy exist.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,606
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'.
    If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.

    Probably laundered funding to some fringe campaign groups, and mass-bots on social media. But this is really playing at the edges.

    The far more concerning thing is the big donations to the Conservative Party, and indirect links through the UK-based oligarchs that make them. Not that this meaningfully affects policy, of course.
    +1

    (assuming elegant touch of sarcasm in last sentence)
    I wasn't actually. Outside wealth taxes (and there's meaningful movement on Conservative policy on this too) I can't see what pro-Russian policy that money has bought.

    You could shout "Brexit!" of course, but that's a bit of a cop out.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,065
    rcs1000 said:


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    Isaac Newton. Optics, gravity, motion, calculus (invented to explain planetary orbits). And then, to quote Neil de Grasse Tyson, and then he turned 26. @TSE will be along soon to remind us which university Newton attended.
    Sadly his attempts to make gold from lead were not entirely successful.
    His parliamentary career was somewhat un-noteworthy, too.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,694
    rcs1000 said:


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    Isaac Newton. Optics, gravity, motion, calculus (invented to explain planetary orbits). And then, to quote Neil de Grasse Tyson, and then he turned 26. @TSE will be along soon to remind us which university Newton attended.
    Sadly his attempts to make gold from lead were not entirely successful.
    Re making gold from lead -- as Warden and Master of the Royal Mint, Sir Isaac Newton detected and prosecuted many forgers and counterfeiters of gold and silver coins.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605

    Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    It makes no odds in any case. Even if the report had definitive proof of successful Russian interference in either Brexit or the elections, we would just be told "We won. Suck it up losers".

    They do not give a **** as long as they are in charge. The end, apparently, justifies the means.
    What's sauce for the goose . . .

    . . . That was Blair and Brown's attitude when they ratified Lisbon.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,606

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    The smart thing to do would be for both the UK and EU to build a new (close) relationship with collaborative arrangements based around a new framework that both are happy with and commands popular support on both sides of the channel.

    However, it's still the case for now that each side would prefer to stiff the other.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,071
    edited July 21

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,606

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    The hostile attitude to the English from the SNP and sometimes in evidence here hung a 'no welcome' sign to Scotland tourist industry from many English tourists who do not need the hassle and have plenty of lovely places to spend a staycation in England and Wales
    Scottish nationalism is fundamentally driven by anti-English prejudice and a visceral inferiority complex vis-a-vis England.

    It's why there will be no peace or 'good neighbours' if they do become independent.

    What the SNP want to do is to try to leverage the power of the EU as a new member state to settle scores with England.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,597
    Pulpstar said:

    Now for something different.

    NHS England case data - daily cases per 100,000

    as ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision etc....

    image

    Sheffield and particularly Birmingham plummet down the chart due to both being huge LAs by population.
    It was a bit of trick to work out the population per area used. Had to derive it from the cumulative rates....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    The smart thing to do would be for both the UK and EU to build a new (close) relationship with collaborative arrangements based around a new framework that both are happy with and commands popular support on both sides of the channel.

    However, it's still the case for now that each side would prefer to stiff the other.
    I think that will remain the case so long as the current crop of leaders - in both the EU and the UK - remain in place. Only once they have departed or died will we get people who prioritise pragmatism.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,910

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    The hostile attitude to the English from the SNP and sometimes in evidence here hung a 'no welcome' sign to Scotland tourist industry from many English tourists who do not need the hassle and have plenty of lovely places to spend a staycation in England and Wales
    Scottish nationalism is fundamentally driven by anti-English prejudice and a visceral inferiority complex vis-a-vis England.

    It's why there will be no peace or 'good neighbours' if they do become independent.

    What the SNP want to do is to try to leverage the power of the EU as a new member state to settle scores with England.
    That'll be why the biggest "origin" grouping in the SNP membership and politicians is English, then?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,605

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    The smart thing to do would be for both the UK and EU to build a new (close) relationship with collaborative arrangements based around a new framework that both are happy with and commands popular support on both sides of the channel.

    However, it's still the case for now that each side would prefer to stiff the other.
    I'm not that pessimistic. The fact that the talks have gone quiet since they started face-to-face talks makes me think that they're seriously negotiating now rather than trying to stiff each other. That's why I'm optimistic there will be a deal.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,071

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,308
    Carnyx said:

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    The hostile attitude to the English from the SNP and sometimes in evidence here hung a 'no welcome' sign to Scotland tourist industry from many English tourists who do not need the hassle and have plenty of lovely places to spend a staycation in England and Wales
    Scottish nationalism is fundamentally driven by anti-English prejudice and a visceral inferiority complex vis-a-vis England.

    It's why there will be no peace or 'good neighbours' if they do become independent.

    What the SNP want to do is to try to leverage the power of the EU as a new member state to settle scores with England.
    That'll be why the biggest "origin" grouping in the SNP membership and politicians is English, then?
    If that is so they must be English "Anywheres".

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,597
    edited July 21
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    The smart thing to do would be for both the UK and EU to build a new (close) relationship with collaborative arrangements based around a new framework that both are happy with and commands popular support on both sides of the channel.

    However, it's still the case for now that each side would prefer to stiff the other.
    I think that will remain the case so long as the current crop of leaders - in both the EU and the UK - remain in place. Only once they have departed or died will we get people who prioritise pragmatism.
    There has been some interesting stuff in the background -

    - The halting of the DB investigations in the UK was done as an olive branch to the Germans.
    - The OneWeb deal is fascinating - buying up the non-US option for satellite delivered data for a song. ESAs launch schedule largely depends on this. Depending on what happens next, a lot of European companies/entities could end up in the merde.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    Yes exactly
    Glad I wasn't speaking gibberish, thanks @TOPPING
  • rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,856


    James Clark Maxwell is a seriously underrated physicist. He should be up there with Newton and Einstein having made defining contributions in at least two fields (excuse the pun!)

    Yes, absolutely. He made some of the most outstanding contributions. Also Lord Kelvin was no slouch!
    Lord Kelvin certainly could be further up the scale in recognition.

    Its all relative but Einstein still the best for me.
    I'd just like to put in a word for Emmy Noethe. Another brilliant German Jew, and also a women from a time when woman were largely excluded from academic studies, she overcame the barriers placed in her way to show how conservation laws arise from symmetries. This is absolutely fundamental, and explains why laws such as the conservation of momentum and energy exist.
    There's also the remarkable Alexander Grothendieck, distinctly odd, but possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,814

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    Yes exactly
    Glad I wasn't speaking gibberish, thanks @TOPPING
    Nope you were absolutely right. The best thing for business will be to have complete alignment with CE mark. That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson, but it will save a lot of jobs (jobs, pah, who needs 'em eh Phil?)
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    Yes exactly
    Glad I wasn't speaking gibberish, thanks @TOPPING
    Nope you were absolutely right. The best thing for business will be to have complete alignment with CE mark. That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson, but it will save a lot of jobs (jobs, pah, who needs 'em eh Phil?)
    I do feel like sometimes on this site, people who dissent from a few users' views are made to feel stupid or foolish. I'm glad I mostly stick to my guns.

    Thanks for your response.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,233

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    Yes exactly
    Glad I wasn't speaking gibberish, thanks @TOPPING
    Nope you were absolutely right. The best thing for business will be to have complete alignment with CE mark. That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson, but it will save a lot of jobs (jobs, pah, who needs 'em eh Phil?)
    I do feel like sometimes on this site, people who dissent from a few users' views are made to feel stupid or foolish. I'm glad I mostly stick to my guns.

    Thanks for your response.
    I suggest you look at some of the comments you have made to other people....
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,899
    edited July 21
    Brexiteers are going to be really mad when our standards are set at the ISO level. Those unelected bureaucrats making our own standards. We need to take back control.
  • I love to see Philip completely pied off by the moderation team, utterly hilarious.

    I bet he never made such a fuss about so-called "foulness" from his own side.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,521
    Nipoleon making it up as she goes along?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,893

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    It sort of was. There are efforts made to put a broadsheet spin on it - and I do understand why - but it remains essentially a tabloid story.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,694

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,814

    I love to see Philip completely pied off by the moderation team, utterly hilarious.

    I bet he never made such a fuss about so-called "foulness" from his own side.

    Oh what has happened? has he been a naughty boy?
  • rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,899
    edited July 21

    I love to see Philip completely pied off by the moderation team, utterly hilarious.

    I bet he never made such a fuss about so-called "foulness" from his own side.

    Oh what has happened? has he been a naughty boy?
    He got sad that I told him to fuck off with his crap, at what was an obvious trolling attempt from him. He then tagged the moderation team not once but three times for back up, like the big boy he is.

    He accused me of being foul, objectionable and abusive but people here know full well that I'm not abusive at all. I just have no time for shit.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    The real scandal is the nexus between Russian money launderers, interference in British politics by a hostile state and funders of the Conservative Party, who are essentially all the same people.

    Needless to say, the Conservative government is VERY keen that no-one should probe.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,161



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,694
    MrEd said:

    USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)

    I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
    There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,814

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Perception of immigration was ruthlessly exploited by Farage in particular and the Leave campaign in general. They all knew they were appealing to base instincts and they didn't care. It is why I have always maintained that if you were able to get into the mind of the majority of Leavers you would see that they are essentially racist.
  • rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Perception of immigration was ruthlessly exploited by Farage in particular and the Leave campaign in general. They all knew they were appealing to base instincts and they didn't care. It is why I have always maintained that if you were able to get into the mind of the majority of Leavers you would see that they are essentially racist.
    I don't think a majority (a significant minority though) are racist, just ignorant I'm afraid.

    People here really don't like me pointing that out but by education level, the disparity is pretty clear.

    Then they say this is why Labour will never win, which is when I tell them I'm not a Labour adviser nor a representative for the party. I suggest they don't do anything I say, because it's not how you win. I leave that to much more intelligent people than me.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 4,347
    Carnyx said:

    Wonder what else could have hindered the Scottish tourist trade?

    The hostile attitude to the English from the SNP and sometimes in evidence here hung a 'no welcome' sign to Scotland tourist industry from many English tourists who do not need the hassle and have plenty of lovely places to spend a staycation in England and Wales
    Scottish nationalism is fundamentally driven by anti-English prejudice and a visceral inferiority complex vis-a-vis England.

    It's why there will be no peace or 'good neighbours' if they do become independent.

    What the SNP want to do is to try to leverage the power of the EU as a new member state to settle scores with England.
    That'll be why the biggest "origin" grouping in the SNP membership and politicians is English, then?
    Care to explain what that actually means?


  • That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,893

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    The smart thing to do would be for both the UK and EU to build a new (close) relationship with collaborative arrangements based around a new framework that both are happy with and commands popular support on both sides of the channel.

    However, it's still the case for now that each side would prefer to stiff the other.
    I'm not that pessimistic. The fact that the talks have gone quiet since they started face-to-face talks makes me think that they're seriously negotiating now rather than trying to stiff each other. That's why I'm optimistic there will be a deal.
    There will without a shadow of a doubt be some sort of deal. WTO is a non starter. I will eat my shorts if I am wrong about this. I will also eat my shorts if I'm wrong about WH2020 and Trump wins. So that's two pairs of shorts I'm putting on the table. Speaks for itself as regards confidence in my punditry on these particular matters.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,161
    edited July 21



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.

    PS. What's the R rate?


  • That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
  • I believe there will be a deal. It will be a likely capitulation of some kind - as Johnson's original deal was - and he will sell it as fantastic. I don't know how that will go for him but he seems to be like teflon so prepare for the 1000 year Tory reich
  • https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/21/no-wonder-nicola-sturgeon-coy-russia-given-has-paying-alex-salmond/

    It is very odd the Tories are so convinced Russia interfered in the Scottish Indy Referendum and yet not Brexit.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,161



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.


  • That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.
    Here's some more shite I need to call out then, please fuck off with it
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,251

    Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    It makes no odds in any case. Even if the report had definitive proof of successful Russian interference in either Brexit or the elections, we would just be told "We won. Suck it up losers".

    They do not give a **** as long as they are in charge. The end, apparently, justifies the means.
    What's sauce for the goose . . .

    . . . That was Blair and Brown's attitude when they ratified Lisbon.
    If you think I supported those two idiots......
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 1,540

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
  • Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    Please call me Horse. As I explained to somebody earlier, calling me Mr makes me feel very uncomfortable.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,814



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.
    I don't indulge in petty insults Mr Phil, I tend to go for big ones. I only direct those at people who are obnoxious like Philip Thompson. Philip, besides needing to get a life and doing something else other than being on here all the time, is extraordinarily rude to many others, so while it may not be a good thing I enjoy taking the piss out of his simplistic view points. I am never rude to those who are not rude.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,152



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.
    Here's some more shite I need to call out then, please fuck off with it
    You really are very tedious....

    Moderators?
  • As for Slough, I didn't say immigration was the only reason for voting for Leave. I suspect poverty and the effects of austerity had a massive impact in places like Slough.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,899
    edited July 21



    That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.
    Here's some more shite I need to call out then, please fuck off with it
    You really are very tedious....

    Moderators?
    Don't write crap, you won't get called out.

    You need the moderators to come in and help you, are you honestly that pathetic?

    So since you've written some crap, fuck off with that too.

    It's very easy, if you write crap, you can write crap. I just am going to tell you to fuck off with it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,597

    Cicero said:

    What is not said in this report speaks even louder than what is being said. There is primie facie evidence that both the EU and the Scottish referendums were targetted by Russia, but "this was not investigated". There are several ways that interference could have taken place, the massed use of bots in social media for example, subversive messages that confuse and drown out legitimate messages and the illicit use of money. There is considerable evidence that all three methods have been used in the USA and in various European elections. The committee can not say that it has happened in the UK. However the failure to investigate ammounts to wilful blindness, and that is an incredibly serious situation.

    In intelligence the test is not "reasonable doubt", it is likelihood and collateral and in both cases the committee implies that Russian targetting was likely and there are credible reasons to beleive it took place.

    In fact it is as close to a smoking gun as you are ever going to get in the world of the spooks.

    It makes no odds in any case. Even if the report had definitive proof of successful Russian interference in either Brexit or the elections, we would just be told "We won. Suck it up losers".

    They do not give a **** as long as they are in charge. The end, apparently, justifies the means.
    What's sauce for the goose . . .

    . . . That was Blair and Brown's attitude when they ratified Lisbon.
    Lisbon was a relatively minor treaty. Performative outrage about it being ratified by parliament from people who supported EU expansion is pathetic.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    MrEd said:

    USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)

    I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
    There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
    I tend to agree. If I wasn't in the US, I'd follow the principle of selling whoever is flavour of the day. I reckon that it would have produced a nice tasty green book by now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.


  • That won't please headbanging nationalists like Philip Thompson....

    The reason why I tend to take note of Philip Thompson's views while generally ignoring yours, notwithstanding the fact that on matters other than the EU I appear to be much closer to your political outlook than his, is that unlike you he doesn't seem to indulge in petty insults.

    Please try to desist, it only serves to undermine whatever point you're trying to make and generally brings down the standard of debate on this site if others follow suit.
    No Philip spends his time gaslighting, baiting and trolling instead.
    Seems that you've also caught the disease.
    Not really, I just have no time for utter shite. And I call it out.
    Really, you have.
    I don't indulge in petty insults Mr Phil, I tend to go for big ones. I only direct those at people who are obnoxious like Philip Thompson. Philip, besides needing to get a life and doing something else other than being on here all the time, is extraordinarily rude to many others, so while it may not be a good thing I enjoy taking the piss out of his simplistic view points. I am never rude to those who are not rude.
    Now you've ruffled some feathers, Philip's hitsquad is going to come for you, shield your windows and doors.

    Honestly, for Philip and others to try and take the moral high ground on behaviour is hilarious. They're just as rude and objectionable as I am accused of being, they just do it in a different way.

    They obviously get very frustrated I am calling them out. Nobody in the world thinks being told to fuck off with their shit is offensive. It's not even a personal attack
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 1,540
    edited July 21

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    Please call me Horse. As I explained to somebody earlier, calling me Mr makes me feel very uncomfortable.
    While you act like a sweary pig ignorant little 12 year old I will call you what I like to quote it back at you "don't tell me what to do"

    In fact maybe more will join me while you continue your Kevin act
  • rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
    Now you've done it once, I am sure it will happen again and again.

    Until one day you're in a Labour Party CLP meeting...
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,899
    edited July 21
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    Please call me Horse. As I explained to somebody earlier, calling me Mr makes me feel very uncomfortable.
    While you act like a sweary pig ignorant little 12 year old I will call you what I like to quote it back at you "don't tell me what to do"
    Okay then you arsehole, behave as you wish. I said please as it was a suggestion, not an order.

    To be called pig ignorant by a slob character, hilarious.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 29,110

    Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...

    Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,172

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.

    This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.

    You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.

    No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.

    If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards.
    If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.

    If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.

    Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.

    It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.

    As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
    Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.

    Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
    The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
    I think my point must have been lost in translation.

    If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.

    For what reason?
    So we can have standards that suit us not them.
    We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.

    Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
    Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.

    Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
    And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?

    Is it all really worth it?
    Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
    The EU and the UK are best apart.

    The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.

    And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.

    General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
    Can't put it better than that.
    Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
    Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
    I must have imagined this, I guess:

    image
    Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
    Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.

    Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
    Exactly what I said.

    My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.

    I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
    Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
    Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.

    London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.

    Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
    Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
    I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
    Now you've done it once, I am sure it will happen again and again.

    Until one day you're in a Labour Party CLP meeting...
    You are being a little bit rude and argumentative today (and I wield the ban hammer), so I wouldn't push it.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,899
    edited July 21
    Oh what's the point
This discussion has been closed.