JohnfromUK
-
Posts
10,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by JohnfromUK
-
-
1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:
I myself wanted to leave but did not see a way of doing so that would be acceptable to us (or the EU) which is my main reason for voting remain.
I was pretty much the same, BUT I know want to leave - in order to see democracy carried out.
2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:The fact that the EU refused to discuss this reinforces the point that the referendum vote was really not well thought out at all.
I disagree. The fact that the EU has refused to discuss it simply demonstrates why we ended up with a 'leave' result. Cameron went to the EU, said he was having a referendum, but that he wanted to sort a few issues (much of it around people movement) with the EU, which he could put as 'concessions from the EU' as part of his remain campaign. The EU gave him virtually nothing.
Had then shown even an ounce of common sense, they would have made some concessions mainly on immigration - which would have been quite easy (and I happen to think hae benefited them as well) for them - and Cameron would have swung the vote and it would have been remain (by a small margin). As it was - he was basically sent home with a 'we won't change, it's your problem'. The British electorate 'saw red' at this display of arrogance and complete lack of interest in the UK's concerns and combined with 'a very childish' and completely wrong "Project Fear", and getting Obama to put his cents worth in influenced the vote against what Cameron wanted.
-
56 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:
do you not agree?
Not really; You can want to leave - and ideally that should be with a decent deal. Failing that there is the present 'deal', and failing that, no deal. They are all "leave".
This so called 'deal' is a bit of a red herring anyway as it is only a 'transitional arrangement' and only there because the EU has flatly refused to negotiate a long term permanent agreement until we have this 'deal' for transition. The real bit that needs to be got right is what happens after the transition period - currently December 2020 onwards. Parliament - with all of its utterly stupid delaying antics has left precious little time for this. They will use that as an excuse to delay even more.
This not knowing what we are transitioning to (WTO, some form of further 'deal', something else) should have been a major red flag because I cannot see how you can negotiate transition arrangements properly until you know what the outcome of the transition is to be. We should not have attempted to even discuss a transition until it was 100% clear where we were starting from (which we do know) and where we were ending up (about which we don't know anything because the EU has refused to even discuss it).
I suspect all the EU actually wanted was out £39 bn to give them transition time to persuade others to cough up the money.
-
6 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:
How do you know this?
I don't know (how could I ?) but if you asked a similar question to before, my guess from my circle locally here is that there would be a little more support for 'leaving'.
If you 'rig' the question by splitting the vote 3 ways, you may get a different answer.
-
2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:
I think a hung Parliament will quickly lead to a formalised second referendum
Which will lead to a small leave majority - and back to square 1.
-
1 minute ago, Scully said:
Simples.
It is - and it is very likely to result in another hung parliament. Result - another 5 years of chaos.
-
6 minutes ago, oowee said:
I would not argue with that.
I might have added;
26 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:- A good organisation has few rules and rigorously polices and applies those rules. Everyone respects the rules Everyone prospers and lives happily
- A poor organisation has loads of rules that are effectively 'voluntary'. Many simply ignore the rules Those who ignore the rules prosper - those who follow them suffer
"A poor organisation has loads of rules that are effectively 'voluntary'. Many simply ignore the rules Those who ignore the rules prosper - those who follow them suffer"
This is why the French (who ignore rules that don't suit them) have done well under the EU, and the UK, who tend to follow rules have found it difficult.
-
Just now, oowee said:
That's an enforcement issue.
The real issue is we have so many standards, so much bureaucracy that the whole thing is completely voluntary ......... unless you happen to be be supplier based inside the EU.
There is no faster way to bring an organisation into disrepute that making loads of rules and not being able (or indeed willing) to police them for all.
Like our Shotgun/firearms licensing systems. Over the years made vastly more onerous to those who follow the rules (and getting more so with Doctors letters required, rules on de-activated items etc.). Still nothing effective is/can be done about the unlicensed ones - which are largely those that crimes are committed with.
- A good organisation has few rules and rigorously polices and applies those rules. Everyone respects the rules
- A poor organisation has loads of rules that are effectively 'voluntary'. Many simply ignore the rules
-
3 minutes ago, oowee said:
What would you do away with?
It is far to big a field to be specific because the EU has rules for everything from a jet plane to the hole in the end of toothbrush, but dreaming up rules principally to keep out the competition is not good long term sense.
I know before I retired - the data that had to be submitted for CE marking was massively onerous and much of it entirely unnecessary.
Many imports were CE marked - but had never been properly tested and never policed - result - WE the inside EU manufacturer had to meet all the expensive standards - the far east good just ignored the rules and stamped the mark on anyway - and sold as 'approved'.
-
15 minutes ago, oowee said:
Yes because the EU does not want to and is unable to compete on price without sacrificing the living standards that we have. Europe wants to have the high standards of a developed economy as does most of the residents of the UK. I don't want to have the standards of the Yanks or china India or anywhere else.
Actually Europe is protecting a low efficiency, low productivity and vastly over bureaucratic and regulated fantasy land.
It is a fools paradise to shut out the rest of the world and try to pretend they don't do things much better and much more efficiently.
-
1 minute ago, oowee said:
The standards here are different than the rest of the world which is mostly lagging way behind what we have created in Europe.
The standards in Europe have been set primarily to stifle competition. There are of course good reasons, but lets not dress it up as something it isn't - It is done to create a closed market.
-
19 minutes ago, oowee said:
They will demand high standards for market access.
The 'high' standards are actually usually no 'higher' than other countries accept - just different. Their main purpose is to ensure that open competition is stifled.
It is a bit like our telephone system as it was operated by the Post Office (GPO) before privatisation;
- It was grossly inefficient
- It was 'closed' in that you could only have a line or any apparatus supplied by the GPO and 'rented' very expensively
- Their system was antiquated using 'party lines' etc because there was no competition to keep then up to date
- There was along wait for new lines and facilities
- It was said that they had to do it to protect the 'quality of service'
When it was privatised - suddenly you could buy your own phone, get your line from other suppliers. The cost of calls, apparatus etc. fell dra=maticall - and the new 'privatised' company, BT has prospered.
5 minutes ago, das said:Yes, I will pay a higher green fee as a visitor, but then I can choose to play as I feel, when I want. But, I won't be paying a £1000 + membership subscription. IE I am free from the tie of the club. What the golf club choose to make as a markup on beer, food and other incidentals is entirely up to them. They will soon find out if their prices are too high. As far as green fee prices go, check your nearest golf club, all fees will be online. As far as non member surcharges go, never heard of them in my 30 years of golf.
I've never played golf in my life so I have no experience of that, but my point is that they will ensure if you are not paying 'membership', they get their 'pound of flesh' and more in other ways. It is about protecting themselves and their 'cosy protected market'.
-
41 minutes ago, Dave-G said:
If I leave a golf club it doesn't mean I can't visit it as a guest or supply it with any beer, it means I no longer wish to pay to be a signed up member.
That is true, but after leaving you will have to pay a much higher green fee and maybe a non member surcarge on other things like for example parking, and should you wish to supply it with beer, you will have to accept that they will put on a large markup per pint, and you will only be able to supply beer that meets their standards for things like labelling, ingredients.
They will make things as difficult as possible - because they ate a very protectionist closed market.
-
Different types of solder require different fluxes. As far as I know, all fluxes are corrosive to a greater or lesser degree.
-
1 minute ago, London Best said:
I may be wrong but I think that if you follow the suggestion to use silver solder on an English gun you will find the barrels fall apart because they are assembled with soft solder which melts at a lower temperature.
I have to admit I had that thought as well, but wasn't sure - so said nothing. I know that there are various techniques using different materials and temperatures. Soft solder is the most gentle.
-
13 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
Filling the whole void would be stronger and prevent rusting again.
Epoxy will have a different expansion rate. Filling the whole void would also affect the balance. Repair the traditional way - they are made that way because it 'works'.
-
2 minutes ago, oowee said:
No it's not. People can be registered in two areas but can only vote in one.
That was also my understanding for national elections. I don't know about local elections (and I suspect sportsbob may be right) where it might be that you have a home in one council area and a holiday home in a completely different council area. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to elect representation in both areas since you are paying council tax to both areas?
-
5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
It's quite simple really..
They have another cunning plan;
It is being reported in the press that one of the Labour tactics being widely used by Momentum is instructing students etc. to "Vote early, Vote often, Vote Labour"
Methods used include stolen/intercepted voting cards in halls/shared accommodation, postal as well as 'in person' votes and voting in two constituencies (university and home).
There are no checks carried out by which this can be detected and prevented; it is an 'honesty based' system. Honesty no longer features in politics.
-
2 minutes ago, ditchman said:
ive been waiting to see what this so called deal composes of ................what does it say ...that Farage has to publish it for us to see....?
There are two things to remember about the 'deal';
- It is a transition deal and lasts until December 2020 - then finishes (unless extended of course) - it's just a stopgap.
- It is the ONLY thing that could have got through Parliament that is even remotely leaving. May's deal failed to get through, 'no deal' would never in a million years get past (despite it being the default position) a Parliament full of remainers.
Johnson HAD to get this deal ....... or he couldn't have had an election, and as a minority government despite his policies, eventually Parliament would have ended up getting a Customs Union and Single Market (truly remaining) solution - or even cancelling Brexit by Revoking article 50.
-
42 minutes ago, oowee said:
Will the Tories stand aside so that he can win seats
Farage says he will only have an agreement in which Boris agrees to drop his "Boris's Deal" with the EU before the election. He knows full well Boris can't possibly do that. Farage is just playing to his ego at present. He loves to be in the limelight and playing to the crowd.
Many Tory constituencies - especially rural ones are 'leave' - but only by a small majority to leave - and of the leavers, the majority of those favour leaving with a deal - and some 'ex remainers' will also agree to leave with a deal. The Tories would lose votes if they only offered a 'no deal leave' and those votes would go to remain parties - very likely a well publicised remain deal candidate. Boris wouldn't get a 'no deal' leave through his own party now there is an agreed deal - let alone through Parliament ...... so he cannot do that deal. To go outright for a 'no deal Brexit' particularly after a deal has been agreed would guarantee a remain victory. Whether there can be other mini deals on a constituency specific basis where certain seats are contested by either Tory or a Brexit candidate I don't know.
-
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:
I cant really think of him displaying vanity or bloody mindedness before, plus he has his place in history (if hes bothered) as one of the principal men of making Brexit happen, maybe even THE man.
That is true - but he did have a great deal of success in the European elections - and I think since then his ego has been over the top
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:It would be beyond stupid to wreck Brexit now, because its not the one he dreamt of, there's still time to get a WTO one, once we enter WA territory, if the will is there.
Again - I fully agree it would be stupid .......... but when has being stupid stopped a politician before?
2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:I don't think he's vain, and I certainly don't think he's stupid.
I hope you are right. IF he stands in every seat - and as a result there is no 'leave' majority .......... he will be shown to have been VERY VERY stupid. Boris's deal may not be great - but he could never have got a 'no deal' passed the remain Parliament led by a remain speaker - so he got the best deal he could. He HAD to do that to breal the impasse - which wouldn't even let him call an election. Remember - that deal only lasts until December 2020. After that we can negotiate trade/default to WTO, whatever the government of the day wants IF it has a suitable majority.
However - IF we have another hung Parliament the whole of Brexit is at serious risk - and IF we have a coalition of remainers - Brexit is dead altogether.
-
4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Smoke and mirrors, it won't happen.
He won't jeopardise Brexit for the sake of vanity, he and other Brexiteers have come too far, put too much effort in to risk it.
He is applying gentle pressure to Boris, but also strategically undermining the unofficial leave pact, lulling the remainers into wondering whether there is a pact or not.
He will fight 20 to 30 seats the tories can't possibly win, the rest will stand down, or assist tory canvassers.
You don't give away your game plan this early.
I hope you are right. Unfortunately since the BP did so well in the European elections - his ego seems to have outgrown his common sense.
"He will fight 20 to 30 seats the tories can't possibly win, the rest will stand down, or assist tory canvassers. " That would be common sense.
"He won't jeopardise Brexit for the sake of vanity" Sadly, I for one am no longer convinced on that.
-
On 31/10/2019 at 10:52, Rewulf said:
Whilst I'm not saying this is an open and shut case, there's also some confusion about tory and BP fighting over votes, Farage has already said this won't be happening.. Repeatedly.
Well - he's just done a turnaround on that one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7638411/Nigel-Farage-prepares-unveil-Brexit-Party-election-hit-list-HUNDREDS-seats.html
-
43 minutes ago, Scully said:
I'm always amused by the criticism self employed people attract in such discussions.
I agree;
I have had two 'self employments' firstly as my only employment, where I did 12 months or so. Naturally I claimed as much as I could, travel and mileage, tools, stationary, meals when away, hotels when away, telephone (before the days of mobiles), insurances, professional association memberships. I can't recall claiming any 'entertainment' type money for wining and dining others or nor anything used for 'holidays' - the hotel fees and travel I claimed were strictly business (matter of fact I don't think I had any holidays in that period). I was paid entirely by business cheque into my bank - and I declared every penny earned. I returned to being an employee after 12 months or so because the long hours, large amount of travel etc. meant I preferred a simple employee position.
Secondly I had a part time 'extra' job as self employed (whilst also in full time employment) running a VAT registered business in the shooting world - during which time I again claimed as much as reasonably possible as above - but again declared every earning and didn't deal in cash at all. I did that for several years but eventually wound the business up due to other pressures on my time and the big foot and mouth outbreak which has given us a lot of worry. I enjoyed it greatly and made a lot of friends, but never made much money.
If you are honest, it is not a 'goldmine', but hard work, risk and responsibility - and for some good rewards.
-
2 minutes ago, oowee said:
he amount taken by self employed scroungers is still colossal.
So is the benefits bill
The Next General Election.
in Off Topic
Posted
The problem is this
For leave: Tory say 295, Brexit say 5, total 300 - no majority
For remain: Labour say 250, LibDem say 40, SNP say 35, Green say 3, Change UK (or whatever they called are this week) - say 3 - total 331 - a majority for remainers and lefties