Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

zapitastas

charlie14 wrote: »

Not being rude here, but I would be with Tell me how`s post on this.

Wouldn't view that as being rude at all. I would disagree though in the sense that up until the referendum the prospect of a UI seemed quite remote. Although the polls should be taken with a grain of salt bit was clear that there was a large number of soft nationalists that were content with the status quo and with the existing constitutional status. A rough brexit changes that situation dramatically and moves those in the middle ground

An Claidheamh

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

No detail, just a general we're f**ked. Presumably the implication is that the EU has abandoned us and we'll be cast aside in favour of a deal with the UK.

Thanks.

Probably a bit naive on my part to expect evidence from that lot.

I get the impression they're trying to convince themselves.

charlie14

zapitastas wrote: »

Wouldn't view that as being rude at all. I would disagree though in the sense that up until the referendum the prospect of a UI seemed quite remote. Although the polls should be taken with a grain of salt bit was clear that there was a large number of soft nationalists that were content with the status quo and with the existing constitutional status. A rough brexit changes that situation dramatically and moves those in the middle ground

I wouldn`t have seen it like some coming down to a straight nationalist versus unionist vote based on future numbers winning a border poll for a UI. The NI economy survives on UK direct investment which would be a consideration for more than a few nationalists if it came to a vote.
A hard Brexit would more than likely move those as well as some unionists in the middle ground but with a hard Brexit then I would be of the opinion that the mechanism under the GFA would be gone to even get to a border poll

Akrasia

Was just looking at the link posted earlier in the thread
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Its a really great resource for the level of propaganda from the gutter press in the UK going back decades on the European Commission website.

The Remain campaigners should really spread this information more widely. Hundreds of articles referenced with irrefutable evidence of the lies that they spread to poison the British public against the EU.

Just some random examples of some of the headlines:

Brussels to tax every phone line £30, Sep 2000
Euro notes responsible for impotency, Mar 2002
EU aiming to ban thatched roofs, Oct 2004
EU bans lorry drivers’ British breakfast, Sep 2001
British power over VAT rates to be abolished, Mar 2000
EU rules blamed for vulture attacks on farm livestock, Aug 2007
Trafalgar Square and Waterloo station to be renamed, Oct 2003
Unwanted Valentine’s cards to be defined as sexual harassment,
EU plans to ban zipper trousers, May 1999
EU to fine British drivers , Jan 2017

Hurrache

The Financial Times taking the UK down a peg or two.
https://www.ft.com/content/29468d52-e0e5-11e8-8e70-5e22a430c1ad

zapitastas

charlie14 wrote: »

I wouldn`t have seen it like some coming down to a straight nationalist versus unionist vote based on future numbers winning a border poll for a UI. The NI economy survives on UK direct investment which would be a consideration for more than a few nationalists if it came to a vote.
A hard Brexit would more than likely move those as well as some unionists in the middle ground but with a hard Brexit then I would be of the opinion that the mechanism under the GFA would be gone to even get to a border poll

In essence that is exactly what a border poll is. Nationalists voting in favour of a UI and unionist the opposite. Will always be a numbers game.

The removal of the mechanism to get to a border poll would be the removal of a political solution to a centuries old conflict. That would have severe repurcussions for all concerned

charlie14

Akrasia wrote: »

Was just looking at the link posted earlier in the thread
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Its a really great resource for the level of propaganda from the gutter press in the UK going back decades on the European Commission website.

The Remain campaigners should really spread this information more widely. Hundreds of articles referenced with irrefutable evidence of the lies that they spread to poison the British public against the EU.

Just some random examples of some of the headlines:

Brussels to tax every phone line £30, Sep 2000
Euro notes responsible for impotency, Mar 2002
EU aiming to ban thatched roofs, Oct 2004
EU bans lorry drivers’ British breakfast, Sep 2001
British power over VAT rates to be abolished, Mar 2000
EU rules blamed for vulture attacks on farm livestock, Aug 2007
Trafalgar Square and Waterloo station to be renamed, Oct 2003
Unwanted Valentine’s cards to be defined as sexual harassment,
EU plans to ban zipper trousers, May 1999
EU to fine British drivers , Jan 2017

Boris Johnston was probably to blame for most of those when he was a journalist covering the EU.
The subsequent lies he and those of his ilk told during the referendum were swallowed whole by many leave voters, so I doubt historical ones being highlighted now would make a lot of difference.
Remainers would probably be better off holding them to account by asking questions and demanding answers at every opportunity on their most recent ones

Akrasia

charlie14 wrote: »

Boris Johnston was probably to blame for most of those when he was a journalist covering the EU.
The subsequent lies he and those of his ilk told during the referendum were swallowed whole by many leave voters, so I doubt historical ones being highlighted now would make a lot of difference.
Remainers would probably be better off holding them to account by asking questions and demanding answers at every opportunity on their most recent ones

Historical lies that have all been proven ridiculous by the passage of time.

charlie14

zapitastas wrote: »

In essence that is exactly what a border poll is. Nationalists voting in favour of a UI and unionist the opposite. Will always be a numbers game.

The removal of the mechanism to get to a border poll would be the removal of a political solution to a centuries old conflict. That would have severe repurcussions for all concerned

That would be the essence of the vote, but with the employment situation in NI and direct investment from Westminster there would likely be some nationalists that would think twice as to how a UI would effect their wage packet.

If there is a hard Brexit then the mechanism to get a border poll would have collapsed with Westminster having taken a leg of the three legged stool of the UK. RoI and the EU that is the GFA.

charlie14

Akrasia wrote: »

Historical lies that have all been proven ridiculous by the passage of time.

Very true. But it is usually too late to do anything about them at that stage that will changed the problems they caused.

Tell me how

charlie14 wrote:

Very true. But it is usually too late to do anything about them at that stage that will changed the problems they caused.

That is becoming ever more obvious.

Off topic but Lindsey Graham had a Tweet today about Trumps job performance and suggested democrats would have stopped the earth rotating if Obama had done that.
A reply showed how Trump is lagging behind Obama in similar time periods.

Doesn't matter, Graham got 28K likes and someone somewhere probably decided "let's stick with the GOP for the mid terms"

Strazdas

charlie14 wrote: »

Boris Johnston was probably to blame for most of those when he was a journalist covering the EU.
The subsequent lies he and those of his ilk told during the referendum were swallowed whole by many leave voters, so I doubt historical ones being highlighted now would make a lot of difference.
Remainers would probably be better off holding them to account by asking questions and demanding answers at every opportunity on their most recent ones

Important to remember too that there was nothing to counterbalance the lies. EU citizens who moved to the UK before the referendum said they were shocked by the complete lack of coverage of the EU in the British media. Virtually no stories at all in the press or the news bulletins apart from the stream of downright lies about the EU in the right wing rags.

It would be quite common on the continent for there to be reports from summits or extracts from debates in the European Parliament on particular issues.

charlie14

Tell me how wrote: »

That is becoming ever more obvious.

Off topic but Lindsey Graham had a Tweet today about Trumps job performance and suggested democrats would have stopped the earth rotating if Obama had done that.
A reply showed how Trump is lagging behind Obama in similar time periods.

Doesn't matter, Graham got 28K likes and someone somewhere probably decided "let's stick with the GOP for the mid terms"

For me at least I don`t believe it is off topic.
Even with all the pre referendum lies of the Brexiters being shown for what they are since, same as with Trump supporters it hasn`t made a blind bit to difference to the vast majority of leave voters.
It seems that in both instances both sets of supporters refuse to acknowledge even to themselves they were lied too regardless of the consequences.
When you think about it, it`s a strong argument backing the DUP supporters claims too their Britishness as well that they will cheerfully burn the house down around their own ears if the think it will cause a problem for the Republic.

charlie14

Strazdas wrote: »

Important to remember too that there was nothing to counterbalance the lies. EU citizens who moved to the UK before the referendum said they were shocked by the complete lack of coverage of the EU in the British media. Virtually no stories at all in the press or the news bulletins apart from the stream of downright lies about the EU in the right wing rags.

It would be quite common on the continent for there to be reports from summits or extracts from debates in the European Parliament on particular issues.

The right wing rags control the media coverage in the UK. Have done for quite a while now. Without the Sun at the time backing Blair it is debatable if Labour would have won the GE in 1997.

Even the BBC which was once worthy off being termed an unbiased broadcaster could not be credited with that nowadays when you consider it`s news coverage on the Brexit issue.
Why that is I am not sure what caused that particular change. In the print media a lot of it I would look on as Rupert Murdock`s legacy with regards to unbiased journalism, but in the case of the BBC I suspect it is due to a tightening of the licence fee purse strings politically.

Added to all that, when it came to exposing the lies Labour didn`t cover itself in glory either during the referendum campaign.

Spook_ie

Akrasia wrote: »

Was just looking at the link posted earlier in the thread
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Its a really great resource for the level of propaganda from the gutter press in the UK going back decades on the European Commission website.

The Remain campaigners should really spread this information more widely. Hundreds of articles referenced with irrefutable evidence of the lies that they spread to poison the British public against the EU.

Just some random examples of some of the headlines:

Brussels to tax every phone line £30, Sep 2000
Euro notes responsible for impotency, Mar 2002
EU aiming to ban thatched roofs, Oct 2004
EU bans lorry drivers’ British breakfast, Sep 2001
British power over VAT rates to be abolished, Mar 2000
EU rules blamed for vulture attacks on farm livestock, Aug 2007
Trafalgar Square and Waterloo station to be renamed, Oct 2003
Unwanted Valentine’s cards to be defined as sexual harassment,
EU plans to ban zipper trousers, May 1999
EU to fine British drivers , Jan 2017

yeah but some/most do have a grain of truth behind the sensationalist paper selling headline.
e.g
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/hot-coffee/

There have been some rumblings that the EU is set to ban coffee machines or force cold coffee on the general public. We wish to cut this myth off at the pass and explain why new rules coming into force as of January 2015 will not affect your beloved old coffee machine and why any new machine you buy will save on your electricity bills

The new rule simply means that coffee machines on the market after January 2015 must have an energy efficient option by having an eco mode that puts the hotplate or element into standby after a certain period (see below): thereby saving on people’s electricity bills. The eco mode will be the default mode of the coffee machine but manufacturers are free to create a non time-limited option alongside the eco mode – thereby leaving choice open to the consumer.

From 1 January 2015, the delay time after which different coffee machine technologies should go into standby and off modes are:

For domestic drip filter coffee machines storing the coffee in an insulated jug, a maximum time of five minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle;
For domestic drip filter coffee machines storing the coffee in a non-insulated jug, a maximum time of 40 minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle;
For other domestic coffee machines such as espresso makers, a maximum time of 30 minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle.

At a cost to the consumer obviously, anyone buy vacuum cleaners before the limitation on wattage kicked in?

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

yeah but some/most do have a grain of truth behind the sensationalist paper selling headline.
e.g
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/hot-coffee/







At a cost to the consumer obviously, anyone buy vacuum cleaners before the limitation on wattage kicked in?

But all products standards come at at a cost to the consumer (as well, obviously, as conferring some benefit or advantage on the consumer); that's not a feature that's unique to, or characteristic of, EU product standards. There's no reason to think that EU product standards are more burdensome in this respect than, um, native British product standards would be. The wattage limitation on vacuum cleaners, for example, is something for which HMG pressed; presumably if products standards were a domestic competence they would have introduced something similar anyway.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

But all products standards come at at a cost to the consumer (as well, obviously, as conferring some benefit or advantage on the consumer); that's not a feature that's unique to, or characteristic of, EU product standards. There's no reason to think that EU product standards are more burdensome in this respect than, um, native British product standards would be. The wattage limitation on vacuum cleaners, for example, is something for which HMG pressed; presumably if products standards were a domestic competence they would have introduced something similar anyway.

As I said most/all of them are sensationalized stories but with a grain of truth behind them.
The example of the coffee machines does mean the EU effectively putting a limit on how long you keep your coffee hot for unless you fork out for a machine with a retro function ( manufacturing cost likely passed on to user ) or by remembering to reset the timer.

When i was a caffeine addict my filter maker was on 24 hours a day and even when the coffee in the jug was like treacle at least it was hot treacle.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said most/all of them are sensationalized stories but with a grain of truth behind them.
The example of the coffee machines does mean the EU effectively putting a limit on how long you keep your coffee hot for unless you fork out for a machine with a retro function ( manufacturing cost likely passed on to user ) or by remembering to reset the timer.

When i was a caffeine addict my filter maker was on 24 hours a day and even when the coffee in the jug was like treacle at least it was hot treacle.

Yes, but it saved you money, since your electricity consumption was lower. Plus, it helped to avoid crimes against coffee, which are among the greatest evils of our age.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it saved you money, since your electricity consumption was lower. Plus, it helped to avoid crimes against coffee, which are among the greatest evils of our age.

But sometimes I want what I want, not what some EU diktat says that I want.

As to crime against coffee, you haven't had a caffeine buzz until you drink filter coffee that has evaporated to 20-40% of its original water content

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

But sometimes I want what I want, not what some EU diktat says that I want.

As to crime against coffee, you haven't had a caffeine buzz until you drink filter coffee that has evaporated to 20-40% of its original water content

"Eat", I think you mean. Possibly even "chew".

listermint

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said most/all of them are sensationalized stories but with a grain of truth behind them.
The example of the coffee machines does mean the EU effectively putting a limit on how long you keep your coffee hot for unless you fork out for a machine with a retro function ( manufacturing cost likely passed on to user ) or by remembering to reset the timer.

When i was a caffeine addict my filter maker was on 24 hours a day and even when the coffee in the jug was like treacle at least it was hot treacle.

Your definition of grain of truth is waffle.

You cant conflate those headlines or even article content from the fairly boring standards the EU was setting.

I urge you to come up with a sensationalist headline whose purpose is to sell papers by conflation a British standard . Let's say the humble 3 pin plug .



"British standards agency to force every household to bore larger holes in their Walls. In bid to make us use additional pins"


Now can you see the fairly obvious stupidity or is this a grain of truth.


Selling papers the tabloidy way. Gutter press

Rhineshark

I have to agree with listermint on that. The links between the coffee maker argument and reality is that both mention coffee makers.

Besides, it is easier to keep a hot thing hot than it is to make it hot due to basic physics. There's no reason why keeping some coffee in it at ecomode all day wouldn't also result in acceptable tar.

Having said that, I'm pretty good with cutting down on wasteful energy consumption.

Spook_ie

listermint wrote: »

Your definition of grain of truth is waffle.

You cant conflate those headlines or even article content from the fairly boring standards the EU was setting.

I urge you to come up with a sensationalist headline whose purpose is to sell papers by conflation a British standard . Let's say the humble 3 pin plug .



"British standards agency to force every household to bore larger holes in their Walls. In bid to make us use additional pins"


Now can you see the fairly obvious stupidity or is this a grain of truth.


Selling papers the tabloidy way. Gutter press

Oh so there's no grain of truth in the story re Coffee machines? or in many of the others, I didn't say it wasn't a gutter press tradition and that it's mainly to sell column inches but that doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth in them. Now I'd admit the banner writers could well do with lessons from "The Armagh Gazette"
or even the Sun Sports writers


But that doesn't detract from the grain of truth when you look past the grabber headlines.

Peregrinus

The grain of truth is "the EU regulates product standards".

That's it. That's literally it. There is no reason at all to think that it follows that product standards are more onerous, more burdensome, more expensive, more bureaucratic, more restrictive than they would be if some other authority regulated product standards. You may find a particular product standard inconvenient or unhelpful to you, but even if so it's not inconvenient or unhelpful because it emanated from the EU. It's inconvenient or unhelpful because, e.g., you haven't worked out how to reset the timer on your coffee machine, or because you didn't buy a coffee machine with the features that you wanted, but in neither case can the blame for this be laid at the door of the EU.

Spook_ie

Rhineshark wrote: »

I have to agree with listermint on that. The links between the coffee maker argument and reality is that both mention coffee makers.

Besides, it is easier to keep a hot thing hot than it is to make it hot due to basic physics. There's no reason why keeping some coffee in it at ecomode all day wouldn't also result in acceptable tar.

Having said that, I'm pretty good with cutting down on wasteful energy consumption.

Did you even read what the eco mode on a coffee machine does, it TURNS OFF the coffee machine after a set time.

From 1 January 2015, the delay time after which different coffee machine technologies should go into standby and off modes are:

For domestic drip filter coffee machines storing the coffee in an insulated jug, a maximum time of five minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle;
For domestic drip filter coffee machines storing the coffee in a non-insulated jug, a maximum time of 40 minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle;
For other domestic coffee machines such as espresso makers, a maximum time of 30 minutes after completion of the last brewing cycle.

So maybe your basic physics in my case would mean spending way more electricity and time to reheat the coffee.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

The grain of truth is "the EU regulates product standards".

That's it. That's literally it. There is no reason at all to think that it follows that product standards are more onerous, more burdensome, more expensive, more bureaucratic, more restrictive than they would be if some other authority regulated product standards. You may find a particular product standard inconvenient or unhelpful to you, but even if so it's not inconvenient or unhelpful because it emanated from the EU. It's inconvenient or unhelpful because, e.g., you haven't worked out how to reset the timer on your coffee machine, or because you didn't buy a coffee machine with the features that you wanted, but in neither case can the blame for this be laid at the door of the EU.

Yes the grain of truth is that the EU are setting standards, that doesn't mean the papers headline grabbers were outright lies, you may not agree with their tactics on selling papers but for people to call things outright lies, well, just isn't true.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes the grain of truth is that the EU are setting standards, that doesn't mean the papers headline grabbers were outright lies, you may not agree with their tactics on selling papers but for people to call things outright lies, well, just isn't true.

Well, that depends on the headline. "EU bans coffee machines!" or "EU to FORCE cold coffee on British public!!" would be outright lies, for example.

On edit: They're problematic for two reasons. The obvious reason is that coffee machines aren't being banned, nobody is forced to have cold coffee, etc, etc.

But the second is the focus on the big bad EU is a deliberate attempt to distract from the real issues which underlie the story, which is the merits and demerits of energy efficiency in coffee makers. The headline turns this into a story about governance; the issue becomes who makes these regulations, rather than whether the regulations are wise or effective or whatever.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that depends on the headline. "EU bans coffee machines!" or "EU to FORCE cold coffee on British public!!" would be outright lies, for example.

The first headline would be an outright lie, I'd say your second has a grain of truth in it, not in that they are forcing you to drink cold coffee but in the fact that you can't drink hot coffee without changing your habits.

People really don't get the difference do they.

Mc Love

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brussels-to-offer-border-compromise-in-brexit-boost-for-theresa-may-jxfrcxfbt?shareToken=450d4c6dcdc0fc3e5caf774fce1e45d1

Nothing official about the so called compromise to the backstop but thought the below was an interesting comment if this is going to be passed by the HoC

In a warning of battles ahead the former Brexit minister Steve Baker, a member of the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Conservatives, said: “If we are going to regulate our own economy, if we are going to have our own independent trade policy, if we are going to be a normal independent country — which is what I understood the referendum result to have decided — then we need to be out of the customs union . . . in a timely way.”

Tell me how

Mc Love wrote:

Nothing official about the so called compromise to the backstop but thought the below was an interesting comment if this is going to be passed by the HoC

That's fine Steve. So, backstop it is then.