Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 27 Feb 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 03:43 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Now What For The UK ?

Today, 02:08 PM

Given that article 50 has a fixed 2 year time limit, it makes sense not to hit that button immediately - hitting that sooner doesn't speed up the negotiations, it just reduces the possible time for negotiations.
It would seem to make sense to figure out what the plan is before triggering article 50 - since leave campaigners don't seem to have a clue what the plan is, with opinions being divided, and the referendum itself posing no plan, no wonder it's chaos. Perhaps a strategy should have been planned before putting the question to the people.
Looks like Boris's proposal is "British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down." whilst people from the EU coming to the UK have to follow a points based immigration system.
The UK will still have access to the common market, whilst not paying in any money or following any of the EU rules.
Also he wants the moon on a stick, and to have his cake and eat it.

In Topic: Now What For The UK ?

Yesterday, 08:12 AM


Europe has also been at war with infighting for most of those millennia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fall of the EU means a return to those times, but I'm not exactly reassured by a "hey, it was fine before, the EU is just a new thing".

Do you think a union will stop infighting in the long term? ;-)





In terms of its age - I note that firstly you base your argument that 17 years is "literally children", but then say 1993 is merely "an additional 6 years" - except it blows a hole in your "literally children" argument.


But my comment was not talking about a return to the pre-1993 EEC - that would be fine too. But unlikely - out is out, not a return to pre-1993, and if the EU collapses due to other countries leaving, we're talking pre-1958. Your comment also was not talking about the 1958-1993 period - you said "England has ruled itself for more than a millennia" and I just pointed out what most of those millennia looked like (at least, for Europe).


The panic you're seeing is partly the unknown - that may have something to do with the fact that we had a Leave vote with utterly no plan as to what will happen in terms of negotiating trade agreements, and there's still no sign of any consensus. For starters if you're going to understand, it may help to have a knowledge that is more than a misreading of Wikipedia (this reminds me of the Google trends showing people searching for "What is the EU" after the referendum). But even the 1993 date is misleading, because an out vote doesn't return us to 1993, it puts us out of the common market, so pre-1973 (when the UK joined). Well, unless we be like Norway which means still abiding by EU rules and having freedom of movement, without any say in the EU.


I don't see how the panic is very odd, unless you think not much has changed in 46 years.



(I had someone argue that we couldn't have joined the EU anyway because an old treason law from 17xx basically said 'do nothing which would result in loss of power for the crown' so it was an illegal treaty and we weren't in anyway... although that guy was around my age and managed to get the hallowed distinction of being the only 'leaver' who I had to block in this whole debate due to the levels of BS put out...)


Ah but the crown also has the power to join the EU! (Unless by crown he means the Queen, but by that logic, the Commons is treason also.) This guy may have been an isolated bs-er, but the common theme of supremacy of the UK Government seems to be a main argument. The paradox is that the UK Government is still supreme when it chooses to accept things in return for benefits such as free trade. The Government would have been supreme if it'd say "we're not having a referendum, and not leaving the EU". The UK has always had the choice to leave the EU - as it will now do. What the UK can't do is pick and choose - have the free trade without the things people don't like. But I don't see how we'll be able to do that out the EU either...

In Topic: Now What For The UK ?

25 June 2016 - 09:55 AM

Re nastiness - I did note on election night how Nigel Farage etc were saying how if the vote failed, there has to be "concessions" because of the narrow margin. It seemed to me like trying to have your cake and eat it: if you lose, you get concessions, if you win, you get your full say. To be fair, the UKIP MP said if they won, there should still be concessions for the people who voted Remain - though it's hard to see what concessions there could be, we can't be partly out, and models like Norway are a compromise that seem the worst of both worlds. Now they've won, talk of concessions seem to have gone.
I was wondering when someone would bring up bendy bananas. The EU does not ban straight bananas, it is to do with classification of bananas and marketing standards; it applies to wholesalers not retailers; it applies to unripened green bananas, it's not about what you buy in a shop. It's just about standardising the way that goods are classified, so retailers know what they're getting - bananas with abnormal defects would be "class 2", not "class 1". Big deal.
Sorry, I'm not bothering with a tabloid source to back this up - a ten second Google is all you need.
(Vacuum cleaners has more truth to it, but it was about preventing energy inefficiency rather than banning some level of performance - yes, some companies did argue against it and said it wasn't the best way to go about it, OTOH this wasn't some petty red tape, it is to do with energy efficiency and the environment.)
As I say, I'm not saying that every regulation the EU has brought in makes sense or is something I agree with. Yeah, I found it a bit pointless to tell users I use cookies on my website. Doesn't mean I think it's worth leaving the common market, closing up borders, years of uncertainty, and damage to the economy.


Criminals in our country wanted in their home country have the right to avoid deportation by abusing the EU human rights act. Thanks again.
There is no such thing as an "EU human rights act". There is the Human Rights Act, a UK law passed by the British Government. This allows people to go to UK courts for things based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also not an EU thing, it's a treaty that the UK signed up to (and played a major part in creating) independent of the EU.
I would be curious to see references for it refusing to allow the deportation of convicted criminals (as opposed to say, protecting important rights for suspects)?
If anything, deportation of suspects is actually easier in the EU, due to things like the European Arrest Warrant. Outside of the EU, it'll have to be done via deportation laws. Meanwhile, deportation of convicted criminals seems to happen more often now ( http://rightsinfo.org/human-rights-act-criminal-deportations/ ).


Money will be wasted on conferences, limos, caviar and champagne in Brussels.
This sounds more like a description of our own head of state...


Not all dislike of the EU is about immigration...
So it's actually about immigration, bendy bananas, and a Convention that isn't part of the EU.
Will look forward to being able to buy straight bananas, I'm sure it'll all be worth it.

In Topic: Now What For The UK ?

25 June 2016 - 06:00 AM

I agree with phantom's point about this not being the common man vs the elites; that was spun by leave lobbyists (e.g., the "grassroots" campaign that was anything but), and now I see even remain people believing it.
I think it's really interesting to see how this is correlated with age though - polling put Remain at a clear majority in age groups up to 34, with a slim majority up to 44 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028 ).
What phantom says about non-EU immigration is also true - it's got massively harder over the last 15 years or so, and even for people getting married, there're several rounds of applications (each with a ~£1000 fee) and one of you has to earn over a limit that discounts a significant proportion of the population; even before that rule, you had to show you had more than enough funds to show that you could never claim any benefits, making the new rules unnecessary other than a tool to limit the numbers.
Now, one might make the argument that it's unfair that non-EU immigration is so hard whilst EU immigration is easier - maybe it is better that it's the same for everyone, with the rules somewhere in the middle. Maybe we could go back to how the rules were say 15 years ago (funny how it's fine to go back to how things were 40 years ago, but that argument doesn't work for immigration rules). But is that going to happen when we leave the EU? Of course not. We'll continue to see complaints about immigration (most of which is non-EU anyway), and pressure for even tighter restrictions.
Having said that, I believe these income requirements don't apply if you want to become a citizen and you've already been living here for 5 years (the requirements apply insteaad to people wanting to get a visa in the first place, and for non-EU citizens, getting indefinite leave to remain), so in practice won't apply to EU citizens currently having lived here for 5 years. But I'd be surprised if anything happens to make it easier for them - they'll still have to apply to become citizens or leave at some point, and will still be subject to ever tightening rules.
Re Turkey: they could only enter the EU with the UK Government's approval - in the EU we have a say, out of it we do not. In fact the UK Government has been supportive of the idea (although even then, only when they meet the requirements), whilst in fact I believe Germany has not.


  then Britain, France, Germany... were net contributors to EU  while others where net beneficiaries

 Britain, was a net recipient of migrants - many of these contribute massively positively to the economy, but there were also massive pressures on public services and also there were migrants for benefits - these disadvantages outweighs the advantages - hence for me Brexit is right, but its marginal


Though the flip side is that the savings of no trade tariffs outweighs the money paid in - unfortunately this is something less tangible and harder to predict. It's hilarious to now see places like Cornwall (that voted leave) moaning about how they'll lose EU funding and need the Government make it up.
Do the disadvantage outweight the advantages - do immigrants to the UK bring a net cost to the UK in terms of what they pay in versus what they take out?

The common market was good though


The shock of the exit has started and its going to be huge, but when it calms down then the positive benefits of being outside the EU would start to be felt


_Was_ good being a key word :) It might be nice to have a common market without the other aspects of the EU, but it's not an option, and now we're out. What are your opinions on what the UK should do in term of trade agreements? That would affect what benefits or negative consequences we have, until then it's uncertainty. If we're asking "Now what for the UK?", I don't think anyone's answered the question of what the UK should do.

The EU is VERY new and England has ruled itself for more than a millennia. This will not have a long term impact on the UK, although it may destroy the EU. Even then, all of the EU states have existed for centuries.

Europe has also been at war with infighting for most of those millennia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fall of the EU means a return to those times, but I'm not exactly reassured by a "hey, it was fine before, the EU is just a new thing".

Now they don't need comply with some of the sillier EU regulations and follow laws written by people they may not have elected.

The EU consists of politicians that are directly elected, as well as those that are appointed by directly elected politicians (so analogous to the UK's 2nd House of Lords, or the US's Supreme Court). I'm not saying the system is perfect or couldn't do with reform, but this common idea of unelected EU isn't really far. Whilst there may be some silly regulations (out of the many which are really EU myths), there are also those that I like; there are also UK laws that I dislike, but I'm not calling for my city to exit the UK.
It's the directly elected UK Government (that the Leave people are so in favour of being supreme) that was majority in favour of remaining in the EU (it would be amusing to see the bill to exit the EU - since the referendum is advisory and still needs to be passed in Parliament - be defeated by the UK policitians that the Leave campaigners say should be entirely in charge).

I think Brexit is rather easier as UK wasn't in Schengen or Eurozone and I believe they will make a regulation like Norway if they don't want to make an example for the rest.

A "regulation like Norway" means being part of Schengen! So much for "control of our borders".

In Topic: Advice with upgrading to Win10 And ISO files

30 May 2016 - 03:59 PM


Are there any subtle gotchas that I will need to be aware of if I do end up upgrading?

The most obvious subtle gotcha that you will have is that you will run Windows 10 afterwards.

I would think very carefully whether you absolutely need Windows 10. There may indeed be valid reasons why you may need Windows 10, for example if you are developing for that platform and want to test your software on it. And yes, in 5-10 years you will probably have no other choice.
But in the mean time, it may just as well be the case that Windows 10 does not offer any significant advantage to you over the Windows version that you use right now (but noticeable disadvantages). Reflect carefully.

Just "free offer is running out" is not a valid argument (limited time offers are often a warning sign, just like "I got 3 other customers interested". They're the kind of sales tricks that used car sellers apply to rip off the foolish).

Now, before the inevitable shitstorm from the Win10 fanboys will start, and we will have 350 posts of how great Windows 10 is and how all the massively negative things don't count... please consider two things:


You don't want 350 posts in response and you label anyone who disagrees a "fanboy", yet you're more than happy to have your say and start a flamewar yourself. Why bother?
Being time limited doesn't make it bad just because there exist other time limited things that are bad. That's a fallacy. One doesn't have to update something that's free, and indeed there is the argument of "if it isn't broke, don't change it" (which answers your later question of why not everyone runs in), but personally I like running the latest versions of my software when possible.
Regarding your other points: I've seen very little marketing for Windows. A notification to users is not aggressive, it's absolutely the correct way to notify people of free updates, same as every other platform (Android is worse, it puts a notification that you can't clear AFAIK). Aggressive would be the endlessly desperate advertising everywhere of all Apple's non-free products.
Windows 10 is the fastest adopted new version other, and with hundreds of millions of users, it's clear it's a runaway success.