The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

16 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

dead and deformed kids and destroyed families, tap Vietnam agent orange in to google and see if that was a good price for sat nav on your phone

if we can only advance by letting 'defence' think up new ways of killing and poisoning then perhaps we need a bit of a **** rethink 

perhaps we can give out free d fens inspired night vision goggles to every squaddie with ptsd that's sleeping rough tonight?

it's a tough call, but I can't help feeling investing 2% in renewable energy research or oceanography or havesting moon cheese for the last 70 years might also have driven innovation without being quite so killy

Had you been taking refreshments when you wrote that, Chris?

It's like 2 lists of unconnected things  - agent orange and GPS satnav / [if] we can only advance via new ways of poisoning and killing / NVGs and ptsd.

The bad things are clearly, unarguably bad. Yet they're not really linked to the advances and lives saved and benefits from technologies and techniques developed through defence related activities.

In terms of Europe and leaving, I see that Fallon is now saying that the future of our defence lies with the US rather than Europe. A bit a go Cameron was all like the future of our defence lies in collaboration with the French and other EU nations. When they flip flop like that, it doesn't half mess things up in all sorts of ways.

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, Awol said:

Torygraph

Both sides setting out their stalls at the moment but it seems the EU does want to bind the UK on future tax regime status - no chance of that unless they back track on some key statements, which they won't.  

It is unarguable that the "regulation" part of what the EU are saying is both true and necessary. All trade agreements have to have an agreed set of regulatory standards, relating to safety, compatibility and so on.

The tax aspect less so. Clearly the EU wouldn't want the UK using an advantage in perks for businesses to disadvantage them. But I think you're right that they can't do anything about that aspect. Whether, given that we're likely to be worse off for a significant period at least, effectively handing big business money, while worsening workers conditions, protection for the environment etc. would actually be a smart move by the UK is another matter.

[PompeyVillan]

Maybe I've got this completely wrong, but how can the EU support Spain's claim to Gibraltar (when the last plebecite had it at 99% remain British) and then at the same time oppose Russia's dealings in the East?

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

When they flip flop like that, it doesn't half mess things up in all sorts of ways.

just remember it's 3 feet to a metre and most of what you're doing will be fine whoever we end up teamed up with - I've worked with americans trying to both draw on the same drawing at different times of day. They'd leave instructions like 'can you increase the diameter of 'x' by seven tenths of a centimetre' but then they'd ask for something in decimal points of an inch. It was like trying to buy something in B&Q whilst on mushrooms.I bought a shelf in there once that was described on the sticky label as 3ft by 150mm. 

there was a bloke in Screwfix yesterday announcing 'thank **** we can get back to proper inches, I never did get to grips with millimeters'

well, if you couldn't work out metric in over 40 years, that might say more about you than how complex ones, tens and hundreds are, you **** **** tard

I never actually said that out loud, but I did stare at the back of his head for a,little while

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Had you been taking refreshments when you wrote that, Chris?

It's like 2 lists of unconnected things  - agent orange and GPS satnav / [if] we can only advance via new ways of poisoning and killing / NVGs and ptsd.

The bad things are clearly, unarguably bad. Yet they're not really linked to the advances and lives saved and benefits from technologies and techniques developed through defence related activities.

I wasn't claiming a direct link between sat nav and agent orange, just annoyed at a slightly crass couple of statements suggesting there might be a price worth paying, millions dead, ISIS, cold war, refugees and deformed babies, on the plus side - playing call of duty on the interweb .

As it happens, I have had a drink - first one in several weeks - and now I'm off out to do corporate entertaining stuff so this is going to be a right mess

 

 

 

 

 

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Maybe I've got this completely wrong, but how can the EU support Spain's claim to Gibraltar (when the last plebecite had it at 99% remain British) and then at the same time oppose Russia's dealings in the East?

Is it because they're an undemocratic shambles? 

[Awol]

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

In terms of Europe and leaving, I see that Fallon is now saying that the future of our defence lies with the US rather than Europe. A bit a go Cameron was all like the future of our defence lies in collaboration with the French and other EU nations. When they flip flop like that, it doesn't half mess things up in all sorts of ways.

There's obviously some posturing in terms of warning shots to the EU, but in strategic terms our ultimate security has been guaranteed by the US since the '40's - hence the fawning and political insecurity over the 'special relationship'.

That said we are leading the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (UK, Norway, Netherlands, Baltic States) and have strong bilateral ties with France under the Lancaster House Treaties. 

Between the two that really addresses our core defence concerns and partnerships in Europe.

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Maybe I've got this completely wrong, but how can the EU support Spain's claim to Gibraltar (when the last plebecite had it at 99% remain British) and then at the same time oppose Russia's dealings in the East?

The section in the EU "stance" that talks about excluding Gibraltar from any UK transitional single market access or trade deal if the EU (Spain, I suppose) is unhappy about the status of Gib. so they've basically accepted a stance from Spain that could exclude Gib from whatever deal is eventually reached on trade, meaning a separate deal would need to be done covering just Gib, or more realistically giving Spain leverage in terms of their aim to take over control, or share control of Gib. And though it's a bit of an error, really on their part, it does show that the UK doesn't have control over what's going on - at any point an EU nation with an "issue" can use that to put a spanner in the works to get something from the UK.

So with this one, Spain could use Gib as a tool to get fishing rights in UK waters, or to get whatever it is they want, really.

It shows the idiocy/difficulty of the whole thing, really.

[jon_c]

50 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

just remember it's 3 feet to a metre and most of what you're doing will be fine

3 foot is 914mm not a meter. If you went by that over only say 3m. You'd have 9 foot, which is only 2742mm. You'd be 258mm (or about 10") short.

[Awol]

4 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

That is a pretty strong card to play.

A low tax country sitting off a highly taxed trading block would be in a very strong position.

It is interesting how the media are very keen on telling the British public what the EU could do to us, but rather reluctant to mention what the UK could do to EU member states, in return.

Ireland have benefited substantially from inward capital investments since their corporation tax was reduced to (12.5%).

The UK's is currently 19%.

Indeed, not to mention the fact London handles 80% of the Eurozone's sovereign debt.

There are plenty of ideologues in the EU structures who may genuinely not understand what the voluntary introduction of economic barriers would mean the nation States of the EU. Suffice to say trying to shaft the City could lead to some unintended & suboptimal outcomes for those doing the shafting.

There are (imo) some fairly loose parallels to Wall St pre-2007. A totally unworkable financial model was universally lauded, but a few firms figured out it was unsustainable and used first mover advantage to make a killing. 

The pricing protection racket that the single market basically equates to only works if members maintain a united front. By breaking free from the cartel and having the freedom to do things differently the UK potentially possess an existential threat to that elite consensus. 

We ain't Greece, and the people currently trying to dictate the shape, sequencing and content of the negotiations are going to become more and more aware of this over coming months.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

A low tax country sitting off a highly taxed trading block would be in a very strong position.

Such a move would be very unpopular in UK political terms. From the British Social Attitudes Survey:

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-33/introduction.aspx

You have presumably noticed that we're struggling to pay for health and social care with taxes as they are right now? We aren't Hong Kong. 

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Ireland have benefited substantially from inward capital investments since their corporation tax was reduced to (12.5%).

The UK's is currently 19%.

Does the power of a country to set its own corporation tax rates differ whether it is inside or outside the EU? The examples you have given would suggest that it doesn't.

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, Awol said:

The pricing protection racket that the single market basically equates to only works if members maintain a united front. By breaking free from the cartel and having the freedom to do things differently the UK potentially possess an existential threat to that elite consensus. 

I don't follow a single aspect of what you're saying there, Jon.

It's a market where a set of standards and regulations have been set. Any of the EU nations and any of the other nations/blocks who are part of that single market can sell good into and buy goods from that market at whatever price they like. How is that pricing protection? It remains a competitive market.

By "breaking free" from that market we, er, can't access it without having to have our goods sold in it at higher prices, due to tariffs which would be imposed, and we would probably "retaliate" by imposing tariffs on goods from the SM, thus making consulter prices higher here, too.

Neither of which remotely poses an "existential threat" to anything other than our trading prospects.

What have I missed?

[MakemineVanilla]

53 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Such a move would be very unpopular in UK political terms. From the British Social Attitudes Survey:

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-33/introduction.aspx

You have presumably noticed that we're struggling to pay for health and social care with taxes as they are right now? We aren't Hong Kong. 

I agree, it would be unpopular but I only mentioned it in terms of negotiating position: nothing more.

Just as the Germans and French might threaten to put punitive tariffs on UK goods, knowing that it would be unpopular with those selling into the UK market.

I did notice however that amongst Amelia Womack's string of pre-conference mantras, she and her Green party colleagues claim that the UK will become a tax-haven.

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I agree, it would be unpopular but I only mentioned it in terms of negotiating position: nothing more.

Just as the Germans and French might threaten to put punitive tariffs on UK goods, knowing that it would be unpopular with those selling into the UK market.

I did notice however that amongst Amelia Womack's string of pre-conference mantras, she and her Green party colleagues claim that the UK will become a tax-haven.

I guess I just don't agree that threatening to do something that everyone knows would be electoral suicide is a strong negotiating position. 

The point about Germany and France is fair, but of course since their UK trade is a much smaller portion of the whole, the unpopularity of tariffs would be massively less (which is a point made many times I know, but still worth observing). 

[OutByEaster?]

The problem with Gibraltar it would appear is that it's a place in Spain filled with people who overwhelmingly want to be British and European in a world  that has decided you can't do both.

 

[chrisp65]

Good old Michael Howard, keeping it real.

Apparently we'd go to war with Spain to protect Gibraltar. Well, that escalated.

Have we checked that the russians haven't put some weird new aggressive racist lsd in all the pensioners camp coffee, port and sanatogen?

I give it two days before somebody aged over 65 suggests we bomb Dresden if the Germans sink any of our ships.

[NurembergVillan]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Good old Michael Howard, keeping it real.

Apparently we'd go to war with Spain to protect Gibraltar. Well, that escalated.

Have we checked that the russians haven't put some weird new aggressive racist lsd in all the pensioners camp coffee, port and sanatogen?

I give it two days before somebody aged over 65 suggests we bomb Dresden if the Germans sink any of our ships.

[TrentVilla]

19 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The problem with Gibraltar it would appear is that it's a place in Spain filled with people who overwhelmingly want to be British and European in a world  that has decided you can't do both.

 

Between a rock and a hard place so to speak...

[Chindie]

Gibraltar isn't a problem.

We could beat Spain in a war.

[Rugeley Villa]

23 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The problem with Gibraltar it would appear is that it's a place in Spain filled with people who overwhelmingly want to be British and European in a world  that has decided you can't do both.

 

It's always been said that we are not European anyway, we're just different to Europeans.