The chronology is irrelevant, the fact that phenomenology substantiated the thought experiment is crucial. Do you not recall the 2016 experiment about neutrinos travelling faster than speed of light between cern and lab in Italy? Einstein was very nearly toast. You should try to pay more attention to reality.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
the tabloids reflect and amplify the view of their readership. Disagree as much as you want, they represent about half the people who buy newspapers and they go out to vote.
I always suspected their instrumentation and secret desire to hit the media.
I wasn't taken in.
Yup, more than half of the Germans supported Hitler in 39,and no doubt you would have too, given the expediency you fall back on, again and again. If it's not down to 'whatever I can rationalise must be true' it's 'whatever I can create a populist consensus around will be true' . When did you loose your integrity (and why)?
I happen to like Paul Mason, the ex BBC journalist.
I also see the same problems with post industrial France in the Alsace Lorraine region since my early student years and have always suspected that the EU and Thatcher serve the big capital.
And the most important assumption is that if and when the the United States of Europe comes into being, the only logical choice is to join.
Otherwise we will end up like Cuba, in the shadow of a Giant of indeterminate goodwill.
The rest is just fluff.
irrelevant.
... Or it's possible that the charge on the electron does not exactly balance the charge on the proton .. despite our best experimental evidence and measurements that they do. We can only proceed on the evidence we measure and observe, if and when anomalies arise, we need to question whether they are artifacts of the measurement process, or a real phenomenon. The best tool we have at present is an assumption that the laws of physics are universal, and unless there is evidence that that is untrue, we proceed on that basis.
we may learn soon if this is true in our life time.
The electric charge is a quantum number and remains symmetrical in our modeling.
Excellent article this morning in the Times. Now I know there are some here who don't want to read anything other than their own opinions - fair enough - it can physically hurt to hear ideas opposed to your own - but for those who are interested in views outside their own echo-chambers - try this:
"There was more bad news (for anti-Brexiters) last week. The unemployment rate fell to the lowest recorded figure since 1975. There was an increase in the proportion of the workforce in secure full-time employment, and a rise in the number of jobs taken up here by people from long-established EU states such as Germany, Italy, Spain and France (weren’t they supposed to be fleeing?).
Let me be more specific: this was more bad news for the tireless tribe of pundits and politicians who still live in hope that Brexit will never happen. They are like Lenin just before the Russian Revolution, who reputedly declared of his country’s economic problems “the worse things are, the better”. He, at least, got his wishes.
But in the UK of a century later, the bad good news just keeps coming in: exports, aided by the drop in the pound, have risen by 16% since the referendum. Manufacturing order books are at a 29-year high. A slew of foreign companies that had issued dire warnings of disinvestment if the UK voted for Brexit have since done exactly the opposite: such industrial heavyweights as Siemens, BMW and Toyota have all committed themselves to increased investment in the UK.
Such plans are inherently long term: it suggests they have solid reasons to believe that this country will continue to offer a highly favourable environment for business, and perhaps also — but not necessarily — that there will be a satisfactory deal for both sides in the Brexit negotiations.
Having had their forecasts of an instant post-referendum recession refuted, the Leninists of the anti-Brexit resistance are now relying on what they hope will be a mixture of British uselessness and Brussels brilliance in these negotiations. See how excited they became when David Davis, the secretary of state responsible for the British side, attended a photoshoot in Brussels with his team and those from the EU without any papers. In fact it was simply that Davis didn’t want to risk images of his negotiating points being captured by the camera crews: the notes came out (obviously) after the snappers had left the room.
Some of the critics say that of course they knew this, but that it was a metaphor for British lack of clarity, which they contrast with the methodical way in which the EU side has set out their demands. There is something in that: the British cabinet had until recently been undecided on whether we should try to remain part of the EU customs union for some years after the official Brexit date (March 2019). Belatedly, the Treasury’s wish that we should — which would have meant no ability to negotiate our own free trade deals with other nations — was scotched.
But we have not had any clarity from Brussels about future trading arrangements, either: despite the vaunted transparency of its published “position papers”, some of which are as thorough as you would expect from such a sumptuously equipped bureaucracy, there is nothing on this immensely important topic.
There are two reasons. First, Brussels, acting for the 27 remaining EU states, doesn’t really know what it wants, other than that the outcome mustn’t be seen as better for the UK than being in the EU. Second, Brussels declared at the outset that there could be no talks about future trading arrangements until the British had agreed some sort of multibillion-euro deal to “honour its obligations” — an exit bill.
The anti-Brexit resistance fighters were delighted by the intransigence on this point of Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It provided them with hope of a complete breakdown in the talks — and that the prospect of a so-called cliff edge would cause the British people to rise up as one to say: “We made a mistake — please let us back.” They understand surprisingly little of the character of their fellow countrymen and women.
In fact, the insistence from Brussels on this point — though it has recently shifted ground to say there can be simultaneous negotiations on trade and the divorce bill, provided there is “sufficient progress” on the latter — is a measure of how difficult this is for the EU. As Barnier himself conceded: “Imagine if this” — a British settlement of commitments to continue funding EU expenditure — “were not to take place . . . The situation might be explosive if we have to stop programmes. Can you imagine the political problems that might arise?”
So actually the UK is not in a dreadful negotiating position — especially as there seems not the slightest legal basis for some of the more extravagant divorce bill demands (emanating especially from Poland, because it is the biggest recipient of EU funds, and France, because it is, well, France.) My guess is there will, in the end, be a deal that gives the UK most of what it wants in terms of tariff-free access to the EU single market, in return for a sum that, while big enough to let Nigel Farage claim “betrayal” — he lives for that moment — will be cheap compared with the ever-escalating amounts we would pay ad infinitum had we remained.
The person most optimistic that Brexit really can be reversed is Tony Blair. The former prime minister harbours plans to lead such a campaign, at the appropriate moment. Until then his ambassador on earth is his former policy chief Lord Adonis (who is also an appointee of this government as chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission).
In two recent newspaper articles Andrew Adonis has sought to ridicule the government’s plans to leave the customs union and conduct free trade deals with the rest of the world, sneering that, in its quest to find the best man as chief negotiator, the Department for International Trade “had to make do with an official from tiny New Zealand”.
As it happens, the man in question, Professor Crawford Falconer, has a worldwide reputation for expertise in this field. Even if he hadn’t, how disgusting to belittle a remarkable country with such close ties to our own, not just in its common legal heritage and head of state, but forged over centuries in war and peace.
This is not a matter of sentiment. New Zealand was the first developed country to sign a free-trade deal with China and to sponsor China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation. It was a pioneer in this field and gained enormous economic benefits from it.
And if Lord Adonis thinks that because of its size it can’t possibly produce someone up to a top job, what must he think of Luxembourg, 100 times smaller than New Zealand, and with an eighth of the population? That country has produced no fewer than three presidents of the European Commission: Jean-Claude Juncker is the latest to come off that particular production line — and by far the least distinguished.
Actually, Juncker represents all that is least lovable about the EU. Yet he embodies the hope of some Britons that their own country will be punished and humiliated. Somehow I don’t think they will experience that perverse pleasure, either."
Enjoy your Sunday. I am about to have some bacon and eggs with another cup of tea and read the rest of the papers. Then walk the dog and later go for a ride on my wonderful electric bike. Another day in paradise.
"There was more bad news (for anti-Brexiters) last week. The unemployment rate fell to the lowest recorded figure since 1975. There was an increase in the proportion of the workforce in secure full-time employment, and a rise in the number of jobs taken up here by people from long-established EU states such as Germany, Italy, Spain and France (weren’t they supposed to be fleeing?).
Let me be more specific: this was more bad news for the tireless tribe of pundits and politicians who still live in hope that Brexit will never happen. They are like Lenin just before the Russian Revolution, who reputedly declared of his country’s economic problems “the worse things are, the better”. He, at least, got his wishes.
But in the UK of a century later, the bad good news just keeps coming in: exports, aided by the drop in the pound, have risen by 16% since the referendum. Manufacturing order books are at a 29-year high. A slew of foreign companies that had issued dire warnings of disinvestment if the UK voted for Brexit have since done exactly the opposite: such industrial heavyweights as Siemens, BMW and Toyota have all committed themselves to increased investment in the UK.
Such plans are inherently long term: it suggests they have solid reasons to believe that this country will continue to offer a highly favourable environment for business, and perhaps also — but not necessarily — that there will be a satisfactory deal for both sides in the Brexit negotiations.
Having had their forecasts of an instant post-referendum recession refuted, the Leninists of the anti-Brexit resistance are now relying on what they hope will be a mixture of British uselessness and Brussels brilliance in these negotiations. See how excited they became when David Davis, the secretary of state responsible for the British side, attended a photoshoot in Brussels with his team and those from the EU without any papers. In fact it was simply that Davis didn’t want to risk images of his negotiating points being captured by the camera crews: the notes came out (obviously) after the snappers had left the room.
Some of the critics say that of course they knew this, but that it was a metaphor for British lack of clarity, which they contrast with the methodical way in which the EU side has set out their demands. There is something in that: the British cabinet had until recently been undecided on whether we should try to remain part of the EU customs union for some years after the official Brexit date (March 2019). Belatedly, the Treasury’s wish that we should — which would have meant no ability to negotiate our own free trade deals with other nations — was scotched.
But we have not had any clarity from Brussels about future trading arrangements, either: despite the vaunted transparency of its published “position papers”, some of which are as thorough as you would expect from such a sumptuously equipped bureaucracy, there is nothing on this immensely important topic.
There are two reasons. First, Brussels, acting for the 27 remaining EU states, doesn’t really know what it wants, other than that the outcome mustn’t be seen as better for the UK than being in the EU. Second, Brussels declared at the outset that there could be no talks about future trading arrangements until the British had agreed some sort of multibillion-euro deal to “honour its obligations” — an exit bill.
The anti-Brexit resistance fighters were delighted by the intransigence on this point of Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It provided them with hope of a complete breakdown in the talks — and that the prospect of a so-called cliff edge would cause the British people to rise up as one to say: “We made a mistake — please let us back.” They understand surprisingly little of the character of their fellow countrymen and women.
In fact, the insistence from Brussels on this point — though it has recently shifted ground to say there can be simultaneous negotiations on trade and the divorce bill, provided there is “sufficient progress” on the latter — is a measure of how difficult this is for the EU. As Barnier himself conceded: “Imagine if this” — a British settlement of commitments to continue funding EU expenditure — “were not to take place . . . The situation might be explosive if we have to stop programmes. Can you imagine the political problems that might arise?”
So actually the UK is not in a dreadful negotiating position — especially as there seems not the slightest legal basis for some of the more extravagant divorce bill demands (emanating especially from Poland, because it is the biggest recipient of EU funds, and France, because it is, well, France.) My guess is there will, in the end, be a deal that gives the UK most of what it wants in terms of tariff-free access to the EU single market, in return for a sum that, while big enough to let Nigel Farage claim “betrayal” — he lives for that moment — will be cheap compared with the ever-escalating amounts we would pay ad infinitum had we remained.
The person most optimistic that Brexit really can be reversed is Tony Blair. The former prime minister harbours plans to lead such a campaign, at the appropriate moment. Until then his ambassador on earth is his former policy chief Lord Adonis (who is also an appointee of this government as chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission).
In two recent newspaper articles Andrew Adonis has sought to ridicule the government’s plans to leave the customs union and conduct free trade deals with the rest of the world, sneering that, in its quest to find the best man as chief negotiator, the Department for International Trade “had to make do with an official from tiny New Zealand”.
As it happens, the man in question, Professor Crawford Falconer, has a worldwide reputation for expertise in this field. Even if he hadn’t, how disgusting to belittle a remarkable country with such close ties to our own, not just in its common legal heritage and head of state, but forged over centuries in war and peace.
This is not a matter of sentiment. New Zealand was the first developed country to sign a free-trade deal with China and to sponsor China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation. It was a pioneer in this field and gained enormous economic benefits from it.
And if Lord Adonis thinks that because of its size it can’t possibly produce someone up to a top job, what must he think of Luxembourg, 100 times smaller than New Zealand, and with an eighth of the population? That country has produced no fewer than three presidents of the European Commission: Jean-Claude Juncker is the latest to come off that particular production line — and by far the least distinguished.
Actually, Juncker represents all that is least lovable about the EU. Yet he embodies the hope of some Britons that their own country will be punished and humiliated. Somehow I don’t think they will experience that perverse pleasure, either."
Enjoy your Sunday. I am about to have some bacon and eggs with another cup of tea and read the rest of the papers. Then walk the dog and later go for a ride on my wonderful electric bike. Another day in paradise.
I thought the EU is quite clear on this for a long time: they can do an FTA something like with Canada but nothing immediately after brexit.
Let me help with that
Another day in Fools paradise.
All the things you have quoted are in fact of no great or lasting significance, the employment figures are a joke as most of the "jobs" lack any long term security, and the so call "Brexit Booms" are being presented as being of far greater value than they really are.
Foreign investment is not increasing and very much under a question mark once the present contracts like Siemens in the north sea are complete, and already we are seeing more components coming in from abroad to complete those, and less being used that is made locally.
How you manage to conflate the fact that WE are the ones who don't know what we want into that being the case with the EU, who have been consistent throughout is perhaps the biggest mystery of all.
Perhaps you should try a few whiffs of oxygen to clear these nonsense notions from your head,
You really haven't the slightest notion of what is at stake here, have you?
just interest in money, the usual obsession of those without a conscience.
Good Tory thinking, or so they believe, but actually poison to the nation's future.
And do give up with these second hand slogans from the Gutter press
"the Leninists of the anti-Brexit resistance"
You only make yourself look silly, and you are doing a splendid job of that anyway, by championing a lost cause that will damage our future, because you fancy betting on an outsider.
Remember this significant fact; Brexit was brought into being on lies and False promises, and the villains of the piece behind this Farce had no idea then, or now ,of how to make it work.
And you have faith in these buffoons even after they have proved liars and incompetents?
There's a old saying about belief
"lie to me once, more fool you
lie to me twice, more fool me"
Still believing the lies, Oh Dear!
And then to get cocky about doing so, and take pride in being foolish?
Amazing.
Last edited:
There wasn't any bad news for anti-Brexiters, Brexit hasn't happened yet. All the good stuff you quote is with us within the EU.
.
I assume that the section from paragraph 2 is a cut and paste from the newspaper, otherwise your zeal does you credit, if nothing else. if so it should have been referenced to it author, as it is obviously an opinion piece.
Let's talk facts..
1. That the unemployment level is down is good news and according to the Labour market survey, is at its lowest since 1971. That it is due to a fall in sterling is an obvious conclusion. However the labour market survey in its income prosperity section, has not yet factored in the increase in imported goods costs which will drive up cost of living beyond the levels assumed.
2. The investments by the named car companies are rather small and also double edged.. the comments by Toyota assume access to the single market, the BMW operation is an assembly operation using the current chassis, and only the Nissan investment is significant. In any case these investments would only prolong manufacturing in a domestic market. The Siemens investment is more interesting,. The UK has a good software reputation, and they will remain anxious to access it. In any event they operate globally and have offices in every country, including third world and Marxist, so why would they not maintain a presence. They already have a number of manufacturing plants and sales offices and they are selling a large number of railway carriages.
3. The comments about the appearance or non appearance of papers at the EU negotiations is laughable.. are manila folders obsolete.
4. The EU has presented a number of position papers, publicly. They have been very upfront about the sequence of events. Only if ,in their opinion , sufficient progress is made on strand 1, (exit) will strand 2 (future relationships) commence . This is not a belated concession but a first principle, and was flagged up very early on. The implication that because the EU had lavish offices, and were prepared to do the homework, they were not playing fair???
5. I refuse to discuss the gossip and personality issues which take up the best part of the remainder of this opinion piece.
While not a British subject, I have no desire to see the UK state humiliated, ridiculed or economically paralyzed, rather I hope it would come to its senses and see where its future lies
Last edited:
I would have thought it is due to reduction on the supply side, encouraging uptake of local jobseekers. A fall in Sterling's value reduces the attraction to come to work in the UK thus level of immigration and competition with the locals.
If there was a national system to provide employments of last resort to all Britons, brexit may be avoided.
I think it's wonderful that you see good in everything,is this natural or drug induced? I especially found it amusing that you thought the reason why Davis didn't have his papers on the table was that long range lenses would pick up his secret 'position'.....a cynic would say that he doesn't have any papers on show because he doesn't have any plan ,but enjoy your idea.
I do agree that the current currency position favours UK exports,the £ has strengthened against the US dollar,probably because Trump is making such a mess of things and the £ has weakened against the Euro,probably because May and Co are making such a mess of things.
This has boosted UK purchasing power in US dollar,accelerating imports and boosting sales into Europe ,a golden currency situation for an import/export business.
This has opened up a window of opportunity for us to progress our on-hold plans for our 7 million RMB investment in China,if the UK deletes the EU Chinese tariffs this will make this investment even more attractive.....but from memory this is not what you want to achieve,you wanted Brexit to create real and highly paid jobs in UK manufacturing,not the zero hours ones that the Tories appear to sponsor.
I am coming round to the idea of either staying as we are or just leaving and coping with the fallout,anything this government negotiates will be such a fudge that we will have the worst of either extreme.
In fact just leaving is ,from a businessmans point of view,becoming more attractive.....we will have to keep lowering corporation tax to keep big business here,Trump will get worse so the dollar will keep falling,the EU is getting its act together so the Euro will continue to strengthen and there is numerous other advantages that I would prefer not to put into print.....so bring on Brexit,the quicker and harder the better.....just don't moan if you end up poverty stricken in the north.
Just be a bit careful with the eggs,the EU ones come with added flavour,hehe!!!
KudosDave
Last edited:
Seems I made it bloody obvious it was a quote - hence it had quotation marks around it - doh - but yes you're right I should have said who wrote it - it was Dominic Lawson.
As to the rest - when I voted leave I thought we would take an initial economic hit - and was happy to pay that price - ever since the Maastricht Treaty in 92 I knew we had to get out - that this was no longer an economic 'common market' but was aiming to completely take over our rights as an individual country - anybody with half a brain could see that - Major was criminal to have signed that document. I've been waiting 25 years to have my say - and me and 17,410,741 others agreed - like it or not we are coming out - one of the best decisions we ever made.
Here's a map for you. Red is leave:
.. my reading of both the article and the Labour force review figures was that there were more people in employment, including other EU nationals and non EU nationals, than anytime since 1971. That would imply that it is the demand side due to more favourable export conditions,
.. yes 17 million others agreed with you and 16 million did not agree. That was a wafer thin majority. We can agree on that fact. We can also agree that there are more people currently employed in the UK, we can also agree that there has been a large slide in the value of sterling, and we can finally agree that the UK is currently a member of the EU.
Beyond these facts we have opinion and conjecture, where we can disagree.
Do you really think the UK is booming?
Professor Minford of Cardiff University says that we would be £135 billion pa better off after Brexit,that is after all tariffs are removed and and the restrictions of EU standards eliminated.
But his calculations assume we maintain all the current trade with the EU.
However,he does acknowledge that the UK would take a short term hit because of sucking in cheap Asian imports,he especially accepts that agriculture and our old inefficient industries would suffer many bankruptcies but he thinks this is a small price to pay for enlargement of trade.
If your farm goes bust or your small aged manufacturing business goes bust would you be happy to know that you are helping the long term good of the U.K.? I have several competitors in Ireland who because of the strength of the Euro are having a torrid time trying to sell into the UK,their biggest market,small companies don't have the resources to wait for the long term.
Oxygen James.....do you have much experience with small manufacturers in the UK,they often have to produce product on old inefficient machinery,they cannot compete if you take away the protection tariffs that the EU protects them....do you really want these businesses go bust because of a hard Brexit,because that is what May is intending.
Minford has just been on the TV,he is an idiot,he is saying that if we remove the tariffs it will force UK manufacturing to become more efficient and more competitive....there is no way that a UK supplier can compete with the Chinese government assisted investment( cheap loans and rebates on exports).... he is also saying that elimination of cheap EU migrant labour will force UK employers to raise wages and thus making unskilled work attractive to UK workers.
He is shooting down his own argument....how come a UK manufacturer is going to become more competitive if he loses access to cheap and very efficient EU labour without investment in equipment and training.
KudosDave
But his calculations assume we maintain all the current trade with the EU.
However,he does acknowledge that the UK would take a short term hit because of sucking in cheap Asian imports,he especially accepts that agriculture and our old inefficient industries would suffer many bankruptcies but he thinks this is a small price to pay for enlargement of trade.
If your farm goes bust or your small aged manufacturing business goes bust would you be happy to know that you are helping the long term good of the U.K.? I have several competitors in Ireland who because of the strength of the Euro are having a torrid time trying to sell into the UK,their biggest market,small companies don't have the resources to wait for the long term.
Oxygen James.....do you have much experience with small manufacturers in the UK,they often have to produce product on old inefficient machinery,they cannot compete if you take away the protection tariffs that the EU protects them....do you really want these businesses go bust because of a hard Brexit,because that is what May is intending.
Minford has just been on the TV,he is an idiot,he is saying that if we remove the tariffs it will force UK manufacturing to become more efficient and more competitive....there is no way that a UK supplier can compete with the Chinese government assisted investment( cheap loans and rebates on exports).... he is also saying that elimination of cheap EU migrant labour will force UK employers to raise wages and thus making unskilled work attractive to UK workers.
He is shooting down his own argument....how come a UK manufacturer is going to become more competitive if he loses access to cheap and very efficient EU labour without investment in equipment and training.
KudosDave
Last edited: