Why on earth would you send 128 bit data packets for GPS? Complete waste of bandwidth. Real issue is that people are using data for things it isn't really for, but software and firmware was designed to handle this many many years ago - you'd have to be relying on some ancient kit for this to be a real issue.
1586 posts • joined 5 Jul 2010
Re: Be curious, if the UK has to toe the line ...
"Politics is the art of the possible"
That's certainly true, the issue these days tends to not be we can't do x or y because it isn't possible so much as we're not even going to try because it sounds a tiny little bit difficult.
"being snu-snu'd senseless by Keira Knightley and Margot Robbie on my own tropical island"
Re: Be curious, if the UK has to toe the line ...
"It's essentially about the UK aligning itself with a clique of radical free-market capitalists in the US for the mutual benefit of radical free-market capitalists there and in the UK"
Also sovereignty is the right of the people to chose their own destiny. It isn't parliament's, it isn't the Crown's, it's the people's.
Also I'd like to see the US try. GCHQ has Huawei gear's source code, has vetted it, is making them produce reproducible binaries. It's pretty clear the whole deal (minus the Iranian regime stuff) is nothing more than Operation Protect Cisco. Why protect Cisco other than obvious economic reasons? Because it's fairly clear the NSA still have operations to backdoor Cisco gear. Friends don't let friends buy Cisco.
Keeps on happening with Microsoft over and over and over again. Our corp overlords when we were sold pushed us over from corp gmail to corp off365 for reasons I don't really understand and we've been having issues like this ever since. Firstly it's not in any way difficult to keep an email service up, secondly google have never had this issue. There's something in MSFT's processes somewhere at some level that is simply _wrong_ - perchance Windows is involved somewhere? If it is, get it out.
Re: I don't understand...
The Brexiteers swore that this kind of thing wouldn't happen...
No, we pointed out explicitly that the EU wouldn't be able to run Galileo without us (true) and latterly that the EU's position makes *no sense* due to the fact there are Israeli companies involved in building the system (also true) and the fact they tried and succeeded for a time to get China involved with the same level of access the UK is looking for (also true). The EU is is a nonsense, and the Galileo project is one of the many many many proofs of that.
Re: Assange is a political prisoner, in the United Kingdom, end of
They offered him a deal where he won't face the music in the US and he STILL won't leave
To be fair, and I prefix this by pointing out he's guilty as hell, he's been assured he won't be extradited to a country where he'll be executed. Two problems with this - firstly it would be illegal to extradite him to the US (not to mention a PR shitshow) if he faced execution. Second point is he doesn't face execution for what he's on the hook for.
The problem Assange has is Mueller is about to indict him for being ground zero in the whole Russia gets Trump elected thing, and there's an entire political class in the US (and outside it) who are going to have very serious problems with cognitive dissonance over it. When that happens Ecuador isn't going to have much choice but to throw him out on the street, the US will suddenly start giving a damn and the amount of pressure the US will bring to bear on them will make it impossible to resist. That will confuse a bunch of folks because they think that either the UK or US give a damn now, when in fact he's basically imprisoned himself, he's quarantined.
I have good news for Assange though - if he knows anything and isn't just a Russian patsy then he has a get out of jail free card he can play although I strongly suspect he doesn't in which case oh dear.
Oh: and by the way, double down and double up mean different things.
This is all.
There is no evidence, the people selling it don't understand it and it's actually embarrassing that I work in tech when stuff like blockchain happens. It has uses, they are few and far between, most stuff people are trying to "solve" with blockchain can easily be solved with other existing and well tested and understood processes and technologies.
Re: Blaming BREXIT?
Uncertainty. Your office could be hit by a meteor tomorrow - that's uncertainty. Plan for no deal and you'll be ready for everything, there's no uncertainty here. If you can't IPO in the event of no deal then you can't IPO because there's something fundamentally wrong with your business plan.
This stuff isn't difficult the terminally incompetent are making it difficult from random bloke on the street through business all the way up to senior levels of government.
We know what the "worst" (best) case looks like, plan around it.
GCHQ pushes for 'virtual crocodile clips' on chat apps – the ability to silently slip into private encrypted comms
I have sympathy but you're right the situation they're in is completely self-inflicted. They wanted to see all data all the time and when anybody found out - as was remarkably inevitable - the public were massively alarmed. Nothing has changed in GCHQ (and at the NSA, BND, others FWIW) since the events that led us to where we are now; without competent civilian oversight (there's civilian oversight, but it isn't competent) of what GCHQ are playing at with regards to what they're doing to perfectly innocent citizens minding their own business for a purpose that could easily be defined as "nothing good" long may it continue. I don't even see where competent oversight comes from by the way, they're never going to let people like me who _understand_ what the tools they use do and what the effect might be on national, personal and business security - as long as that remains true people like me are going to do everything we can to ensure they stay shut out of everywhere it matters. I've said it here before but their remit as defined in law is to protect the national security of the country, work in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK and support the prevention and detection of serious crime. Trawling comms of Joe Average minding his own business isn't that - in fact it plainly makes their job far far harder.
I don't even have confidence that they're even restricting themselves to working within the rather open legal framework they're allowed to act.
US told to quit sharing data with human rights-violating surveillance regime. Which one, you ask? That'd be the UK
Re: People in glass houses ...
2 wrongs and all that
2 wrongs for sure but data flows both ways. If the EU took the same view about the US things would get very messy very quickly. The problem is how low the bar is, it's basically on the floor. UK *does* have strong protections is the trick, it'd be nice if they [the government] unfucked a few things is all. Some proper competent oversight for GCHQ would be a good start.
Re: I'm sneering, but you know who's to blame for this?
smart meters are an EU wheeze leapt upon by Ed Miliband's Department of Energy and Climate Change
They're explicitly required by EU law - I'm still not sure if it's good or bad that we're miles ahead of Germany on this. The problem with it is the desperate panic with which the whole thing was rolled out - it's led to many problems. Personally speaking we love ours, it's solved many many problems that we had before (related mostly to our meter being installed within our flat and we broke their [the energy company's] system for self-reporting meter readings and shocking issues with bill estimation). Does it save energy? Probably not, it will for anybody who really doesn't understand where their energy use is going but otherwise it won't. For some it'll be nothing, for others it'll be probably be hundreds a year. The other issue is now there's a standard they're sitting on the new standard compatible meters and still trying to push the old ones out the door and nobody wants them because they have supplier-switching issues which of course is exactly what suppliers want - IMHO they should have all been prosecuted under competition law but what is a person to do?
in practice such an event hasn't occurred within living memory.
Well, except for that one time two days ago when all their second factor stuff died for a very extended period... But other than that! Oh yeah and that one time a few days before where the entirety of office365's outlook email service died for 4 hours.. But other than that!
To be fair though presumably one can authenticate the old fashioned way still..
Outlook (email) was also down completely for 4 hours the other night and nobody noticed. When we were acquired by our new parent company we were forced off the perfectly fine corp google mail service we were using that never had issues onto the Microsoft stuff and it's been crap ever since. I usually defend Microsoft quite a lot but you'd think they could manage to keep something so simple online for everybody, all the time.
Re: Here's what's interesting.
Bit of a leap. The helicopter's altitude would have been significantly higher than this drone. The reason he wouldn't have known it was there is they weren't in conflict which is precisely the point isn't it? The downwash from a heli would have destroyed it basically instantly if he was within hundreds of feet of it.
I'd be interested to see the video from the heli which should have been saved as evidence to see what actually happened.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the guy isn't an utter clown, but I'm interested in how much real risk there is/was.
Here's what's interesting.
"The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made"
You can reasonably satisfied if that's the case with an FPV drone. I'd be more comfortable at 100 miles satisfying myself through FPV that than using line of sight to satisfy myself at 400 meters. Also yes I did put it like that intentionally. There are a few absurdities in law with this stuff, which is probably why some people don't take the law seriously. I can fly actual aircraft (PPL - although my rating lapsed admittedly years ago because I wasn't getting any use out of it) and so I'm fully aware of the issues and the drone panic (albeit sometimes justified) is drowning out sensible regulation in this area.
Also that offence isn't strict liability is it? It can't be else it wouldn't rely on a person satisfying themselves - surely they should be required to prove a person isn't reasonably satisfied that it's safe to fly.
Re: How about fixing the existing tax code to cover this??
When we're not in the Single Market anymore, surely companies won't be able to book UK profits in Ireland/Luxemburg/Netherlands, as now?
This is a simple one - because Hammond doesn't think we're going to leave the single market and that it's up to him. I very strongly hope and would suggest to the government as a voter and 40% tax payer (and FWIW as a party member under 40 - we're a rare breed) that this isn't a thing.
Re: the laws of unintended consequences
Using a country's IP address blocks to levy taxes means increased VPN usage (as mentioned above) to avoid taxation.
Are you really saying that because of edge cases we shouldn't do anything about this? People aren't going to use VPNs to use facebook purely for the intent of pretending they're in Ireland just to save Facebook £0.0000000000001 a year, that's *insane* to even suggest.
If it's a sale of an actual thing leaving the EU fixes this problem because customs, if it's a company intent on making no margin because services they either play ball or get lost - this by the way is perfectly doable by Facebook saying what percentage of their user base are in the UK and figuring out what is what from there - there's actually no need to not trust their numbers on this; even as it relates to tax, until proven otherwise. Also by the way being banned from booking UK ad sales to the RoI when we leave the EU.
Re: How about fixing the existing tax code to cover this??
So how about fixing the existing tax laws to get rid of shady tax strategies such as the "Double Dutch Debit", the "Irish Shower", "Lax in Lux(embourg)" and "Nobody ever goes to Jersey, but somehow our multi-billion dollar company is headquartered there"??
Because it operates under the rules of the Single Market. No single market, no problem. Problem is the rules that make this a thing won't change before hell freezes over.
If nothing else, pass an EU wide corporate income tax for specific types of companies that are problematic, so that wherever you operate in the EU these companies pay the same tax.
Won't solve the problem and would trigger many referendums that would certainly fail in a whole bunch of countries. You'd turn even Luxembourg into a country intent on leaving the EU. They don't want a fair tax system, and that's the problem and why this will never be a thing, a lot of countries are quite happy with how things are thank you very much.
The key to this is being clear about what we're talking about and then doing it right and doing it fairly - I do see why Hammond has done this unilaterally (I always suspected this was going to be the case). If they're paying tax at a rate that smells sensible they shouldn't be fair game - if they're providing minimal value to a country and potentially even actively harming it, paying no tax and located somewhere they pay almost none like, I don't know, Facebook then the system is unfair and measures to correct should be applied. The UK tax system is exceptionally simple, and we need to stop being taken for a ride by companies making massive revenues and synthetically buried (by moving) profits for the avoidance (and evasion) of tax here. If they don't like it they have the choice to not serve customers in the UK.
Re: International norms
That's the actual issue, there's a massive tax evasion exercise going on, if we're talking about international norms. Then again it's one that relies of fairly fundamental EU law at its heart and we have no tools in the box to fix it until we leave.
I have no confidence in our [UK] government to sit this guy down and tell him to shut the f up, which is somewhat alarming really. That said W&M isn't nearly as influential as the article might suggest.
"he is threatening to take similar actions against British firms should the digital services tax indeed take effect in 2020"
Which British firms are behaving like Google, Amazon, Facebook in this area? Tell me who they are and I'll join that fight too. Also getting pissy about something that doesn't exist, will not exist for a long time and the government has made clear will be put together with the involvement of business is a pretty strong clue you're a nutjob and nobody should take you seriously. Sounds like the OECD path he's suggesting won't work anyway given how opposed to this measure he is.
Double taxation - the problem is getting these companies to pay *any* tax, anywhere.
Re: Personally, I find it refreshingly honest.
Yep that's why Facebook are expanding their UK HQ. Oh hol up.
It's no google megahq but they know that when the UK leaves the EU they'll have no legal method of pretending UK sales are taking place in the RoI unless May does something *monumentally* stupid like try to keep us in the SM for any period whatsoever.
RoI gets the numpty operation, London gets the largest Facebook engineering hub in the world outside the US - and they made that decision long after the UK voted to leave the EU. Go on, paint your narrative, make my day.
Course you don't have to take my word for it you can ask their VP of European Ops. "The UK’s flourishing entrepreneurial ecosystem and international reputation for engineering excellence makes it one of the best places in the world to build a tech company. And we’ve built our company here – this country has been a huge part of Facebook’s story over the past decade, and I look forward to continuing our work."
We've done google, we've done facebook, would you like to talk about Amazon expanding in the UK since the decision to leave, or Starbucks firing everybody in the Netherlands and moving all the jobs to London or one of the other isn't it weird how all the jobs are going the opposite way to what was claimed?
"So we have a tax code so complex that companies find it's worth spending a fortune to find loopholes"
Yep. I don't know if there's a good answer to this but generally speaking simpler tax systems are better than complex ones - everybody pays their fair share and you can an have an overall lower rate, which is of course the overriding position of the Conservatives on taxation despite claims to the contrary, the issue is making it happen. If a company intentionally makes no margin to avoid paying taxation I don't see how you can really stop that. This measure seems to be more aimed at companies like Facebook explicitly where the real issue IMHO is companies like your Amazon's and your Starbucks of this world;
Countries outside the EU aren't having this problem. I was bemused by the point he made after about about companies avoiding paying UK tax (VAT especially) by booking sales to branches in other countries - given that Hammond is somebody who wants to at minimum remain in the single market. Well, that's what Amazon does - hence why I buy things from Amazon EU Sarl. Once we get out the Single Market Amazon will no longer be allowed to use this completely synthetic "fulfilment" relationship where it pays sales tax for UK (and by the way French, German, others..) sales in Luxembourg. The EU can't stop this either because of course the Single Market is a fundamental part of the EU's core reason for being. This is the real problem we have, and it's the easiest one to fix.
Re: "Keep calm and carry on"
FT isn't pro-remain, it's a mouthpiece of the European Commission. You want finance news read cityam like finance workers do.
Nevertheless, it's going to be the easiest deal in history. Apparently.
It is. Remainer conservative MPs and arguably naive leaver MPs stupidly put a remainer in charge of the whole affair who immediately set to work making it as complicated as possible. Nobody anywhere is arguing that May hasn't completely ballsed up the leave process. Then again we know what it looks like to leave the EU - we don't pay them money for anything, we're not in the single market or customs union and they don't make our laws or customs tariffs - including tariffs on goods coming from the EU. Anything else is noise, and yes - that includes the NI/RoI border and passporting and all the other *nonsense*.
If we don't *leave* as the country voted for the UK political landscape is going to jerk pretty wildly to the right. It shouldn't need to and if we leave it won't, but it will if we don't.
Re: codejunky should be along at any moment...
But it's the brexitters who now insist that remaining in the single market and customs union (the so called 'Norway' or 'Switzerland' option) is a betrayal of what people voted for
Because remaining in SM or CU is remaining in the EU. It's what you do when you want to join. We don't want to join, we want to leave. When I say "we" I mean a majority of the country that is eligible to vote. Nothing else really matters.
UK accepts single market and customs union, leaves EU, ends up like Switzerland. Job done. Economy saved, referendum vote fulfilled, everyone's happy
The UK isn't Switzerland, our economy is wildly different in size and scope, one size does not fit all. Not for nothing but even if what you're saying is a good idea - and lets be *extremely* clear about this: it isn't - it's not at all clear that this is even a thing even if we want it to be. The EU since the day we joined has been an exercise in suppressing the UK economy. From the scuttled trade deals when they realise the UK might benefit to supplanting the population to asset stripping to setting up dodgy tax regimes that allow (no, encourage) tech companies - and others - to pretend they're selling things (goods and services) in RoI or Luxembourg when they're actually selling them in the UK - you'll note now the UK is leaving the EU they're actually interested in dealing with it, pretend the absurd happens and the UK decides to stay in the EU they'll drop it like its hot - or getting around UK import taxes and restrictions on dangerous products by sending them all through the Netherlands so the vast majority of goods imported into the UK are duty and VAT paid in the Netherlands (hundreds of billions during a MAFF period if you're wondering) and pretending that the UK actually trades with the EU to confuse the terminally simple.
EU membership is no good for the UK, and anybody who says it is doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
OTOH when we leave we're going to have a pretty decent sized economic rebalancing, we have to undo the damage done by decades of a glut of cheap labour and the ensuing housing shortage and wage suppression (the things we buy are way cheaper than they should be and it's going to be a culture shock) we have to build an immigration system that's fit for purpose and we need new ports to be built. We also need to get trade deals going, something that should have been well underway by now. The US deal is going to be some instant gratification and it's looking like we can copy paste some deals with our actual trade partners (re-emphasis: NOT the EU).
If we didn't have remainers running the country (i.e. we had a competent government) we'd have been using the time efficiently to get trade deals ready to go in March but we do and they're trying to shackle us to a sinking ship so it's probably going to hurt for a while - but in the end the payoff is huge. Far less social strife, better wages, better standard of living and a far less significant housing shortage. If we remain in anything that even smells like being in the EU firstly there's no benefits for a long long time and secondly I don't know what happens politically; except to say it'll make Trump look like Bernie Sanders in comparison, you'll be longing for the days when liberals like Nigel Farage were saying nice things about the EU.
Re: "Keep calm and carry on"
China, explain. Most EU certifications relating to fitness to sell (as per most of the world's standards in this area) are self-certificated and btw UK manufacturing already at the EU's standards. This discussion is roflcakes.
Oh and I see we're still flatly lying about what JRM's company is doing.
Re: ...the chip shown in the Bloomberg piece...
It seems to me then, that the chip shown by Bloomberg is not too small for the necessary logic and data.
I suggest looking again at the capabilities bloomberg were claiming which leads to the conclusion it's plausible *if* and only if China are actually space aliens or that guy who claims to have travelled to the future and everybody else is doing it is telling the truth.
I could believe it if there's been wires crossed somewhere (no pun intended) between what bloomberg have been told, capabilities and what I'm sure China might do if they could, but just no. It's that why are you so adamant thing again.
Even boards in short take a lot of current to heat up and be seen on an IR camera. Most mobo PCBs are fairly decent heat sinks - semi-intentionally. The real issue is this stuff would show up on X-Rays and using AI to QA mobos is nothing new. Chips that don't belong would attract attention at all sorts of parts of manufacturing and post-ship QA like when somebody attaches a chip to data lines causing high failure rates and being shipped back to SMC for it.
Ignoring all the other reasons to not accept BB's case at face value, it's an *extremely* risky strategy.
Re: A retraction is unlikely
Instead Bloomberg will force Super Micro to sue them and prove in court that the story is false before Bloomberg is forced to pay proper damages in the tens of millions.
You've got the evidentiary standard backwards. SMC *do not* have to prove the story is false. The problem SMC have is as I said in another comment if Bloomberg produce anything that smells even remotely like what they're claiming (it doesn't have to even be even slightly close) they could easily win that case - especially in jury trials. It's a very risky lawsuit for SMC to file - it shouldn't be, but it is. You just have to look at the idiocy of the rulings in the Apple v Samsung stuff to know that you shouldn't let technical arguments anywhere near courts because they have *no idea* what you're talking about and will take very tenuous claims as valid.
Re: More questions
4. How would it get power, access to memory, data buses, clock, control buses? (Dunno. Maybe doable. But probably very difficult to do)
5. How the heck would one talk to it and control it without getting root or microcode access to the machine? If you have root/microcode access, why do you need a spy chip?
Course it's possible but it'd be a pretty chunky chip at the speeds of those data lines. On your #5 point once you have DMA things like that are irrelevant, that's why it would be a powerful tool.
I find it very hard to believe such a chip would get through QA - and RMA - not be noticed by anybody and that nobody would contact any of the companies involved - including SMC. We should be clear nobody has any reason to protect China here and every reason to call them out.
Re: Conspiracy theory?
There are far less public ways to knock down the stock price of a target.
Not many *that* effective though. This did more relative damage to the SMC price than happened to Equifax in the aftermath of their massive incompetence.
My theory is more that somebody has made up this story to either dupe Bloomberg as an attack on Bloomberg or to hit SMC stock so they can buy it cheap. Either way Bloomberg has a serious problem. Nobody in the industry is taking this story seriously because as reported it's completely absurd. Not that it's impossible but the technical claims just aren't right. Think I said elsewhere for China to pull this [specifically what Bloomberg have claimed] off they'd have to be far more technically advanced than any other country in the world and not for nothing people would notice so why try to do it anyway.
Option C is it's an attack on China and given the involvement of security services that's not implausible either.
Bloomberg is a dupe, and how hard it's standing by its story doesn't end well. Course we shouldn't feel sorry for them - SMC can't sue Bloomberg because if somebody produces a hacked motherboard no matter the provenance or capabilities of the board SMC basically automatically lose. If this was a UK publication regulated by IPSO I'd personally have seen to it by now there was an IPSO complaint in there. I don't know what the SEC rules are but I'd be interested generally and especially if I was SMC what the rules about this kind of thing are; there's a point Bloomberg either have to produce *any* evidence (and we should be clear there's zero evidence right now) or retract and apologise very publicly.
@DougS the problem he has is how adamant he was that these people weren't Russians and how he knows who they are and absolutely did I mention guarantees they weren't Russian? I said at the time long before Mueller and Trump being elected in fact that he couldn't possibly know - the only way you can know if they're Russian or not is if you know for a fact they are. Nope, they're not Russians. His claims on this have been far too matter of fact for his own good - if he'd said "I don't believe they're Russians, but how could I know?" he'd be far less at risk of this.
For like the 400th time he's perfectly entitled to leave whenever he likes. Stop pretending he's in some secret CIA prison in Antarctica. His confinement is *completely* self-imposed. Pretending the US is out to get you doesn't mean they actually are - if the US ever tries to extradite this man from anywhere it'll be in full view of the world and he'll be entitled to all rights availed any other US prisoner. Now personally up until Mueller went after his mates I didn't think the US could even figure out what to charge him with - now it's reasonable to assume the US thinks they might be able to prove he knowingly engaged in espionage against the US on behalf of a foreign power. Some of the Mueller docs you can totally see where names have been redacted it should say "wikileaks" or "Assange" - I wonder if he has anything to trade because Putin won't lift a finger to help him.
Re: There's always an excuse to increase prices, but...
They were all prominent people linked to the Leave campaign talking before the referendum.
Yeah and edited out of context to look like they were saying things that they weren't.
EEA doesn't allow negotiating free trade deals. And before you say it does - it very clearly doesn't which is why no members of it do. Technically yes, you're right in that legally speaking you theoretically could but the reality is it makes it impossible. EEA membership is as stupid as May's Chequers plan.
Re: There's always an excuse to increase prices, but...
Also by the way looking at this again - the question in that poll makes it a push poll, the wording of the question is written to make the people being asked express a specific view AND the option they want to you answer is not an available option so it's worthless anyway. GJ BBC.
Re: There's always an excuse to increase prices, but...
Dan 55 -
Several issues. Firstly selective editing is fun. Secondly those people don't speak for all leavers. Thirdly remainers like to get hung up about what was said in the campaign - all those things weren't.
Leaving the EU means leaving the single market and customs union - you don't do either one of those things and you're in the EU in all but name - and that's what everybody voted for. You stay in the EU you're not leaving either. Ignoring that all campaigns were *extremely* clear about what that meant. Weird how that linked poll screenshot massively oversamples remain voters though, was the groundwork done at the lib dem conference?
Re: There's always an excuse to increase prices, but...
I can't work out, and no Brexiteer has managed to demonstrate, where all the boundless goodness is going to come from.
It's been explained millions of times.
The EU works out trade deals good for countries like Germany - then any time the prospect of a trade deal good for the UK raises its head they immediately scuttle it. The way they made TTIP completely untenable to all sides is a fairly obvious example of it but there's been many examples. A trade deal with the US is easy but the UK was going to net gain so can't have that. Lets talk about your regulation of swimming pool temperatures. Lets talk about US ownership of European public orgs. Fancy a chunk of the NHS? We can do that. Oh the UK won't like any of this, looks like a winner. Death spiral ensues. Scuttled *intentionally* by the EU. There are many examples of this. China is never going to happen, india, the Japan one the EU is pretending to have is a sick joke - they didn't even want it until we're leaving and it's a million miles from anything that even smells like a trade deal - it's an agreement to follow existing trade legal norms which both sides should be doing anyway.
The EU puts tariffs on things that Germany can't compete with. China makes very high quality solar panels that are cheaper than the ones Germany makes. It's a stated EU objective to reduce carbon (amongst other things) emissions. The technology to do this only useful when it's cheap but obviously one thing you can't have is a country like China outcompeting Germany on price and quality so obviously we need tariffs completely contrary to a major goal of the EU - that's leaving aside when it's British industry they couldn't care less, even when they don't have to pay but that's moot, the EU has rules right? Net result - reducing carbon emissions in the EU is more expensive than it should be. Now this is silly enough, Germany and Spain started this action, the EU fast-tracks the response (calls it dumping because obviously if we can't compete it must be dumping), tariffs applied - here's the kicker - Germany realises it's also buying many many of these solar panels from China itself because who in their right minds would overpay for something so important - especially when you're busy decommissioning all your nuclear power - and that because the German solar manufacturing industry isn't very big it's actually getting screwed both ends. Can Germany undo the almighty mistake it just made? No, no it can't - because the EU is a massive complicated undemocratic *mess* when you put something in motion you can't stop it nor undo it (the stupidity of the TPD and how it's going to kill millions of people is another fine example of this idiocy). The EU legally, politically and economically is a gigantic oil tanker in a hurricane that has lost power and dropped its anchors at the bottom of the ocean; it's going to hit land and piss oil out everywhere. It's just a matter of time.
As for why's the leaving thing and doing trade deals better than staying in and hoping the EU throws us a morsel once every few decades, well, because when we leave all trade with the EU isn't going to stop, even with a no-deal brexit. It's going to drop proportionally to the tariffs that are brought in. We know what those look like, and they are not scary. If that's all it was you'd probably be right and brexit would be a terrible idea - we have the chance to do trade deals very easily with people who are are our actual major trade partners - as opposed to pretend ones that aren't like the Netherlands - based on the concept of reciprocity. We like the deal, they like the deal, we cover the easy stuff and build from there. We can pick apart what deals the EU has and essentially copy-paste them (yes, it is a thing) into the basis of a new deal - we're trading on those terms today, there's no reason we can't tomorrow, in fact because we're not in the EU we have a chance to offer better terms than the EU gave these countries. You can start stacking up trade deals very quickly in that environment.
This is of course predicated on having a competent government, which is a different problem entirely - but the PM was picked by remainer MPs and I'm not responsible for that. An actual leaver in government would have been negotiating deals since 2016 ready to come into force the day we leave. Many have countries have said it's doable and they would and it's a huge shame this hasn't happened - unless it has which we won't know for a while - seems unlikely with May trying to anchor us to the sinking ship.
I mentioned the Netherlands. According to the stats the Netherlands is IIRC the UK's third biggest trade partner. We do significantly more trade with the Netherlands - especially on imports than we do with France. France actually produces things that we buy and has a far larger economy, the Netherlands doesn't (unless you count tulips - and no this isn't a meme, it's an actual fact) - so why is it that the Netherlands has a disproportionate amount of trade with the UK? You've probably heard of the Rotterdam Effect. It's estimated to be about 2% of our trade with the Netherlands - that figure is completely wrong. There's no actual way to untangle this but the numbers don't fit, it's probably closer to 50% than 2% (you can work out what they should look like by comparing similar countries) - and now the UK-EU trade figures don't look so good. Lets massively lowball it and say it's 10%; the UK is now missing out on hundreds of billions of pounds in taxes (VAT, tariffs) in a MAFF period that are being billed by the Netherlands and being sold as the UK end-destination but not taxed that way. We now have a problem.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Starbucks. You've heard of these companies - there's a reason you've heard of these companies. They're using single market tax rules to completely synthetically book sales to other countries. RoI, Luxembourg, Spain, others. Net result - they pay almost no tax in the UK despite the fact we know for sure they're actually making huge sales in the UK. Amazon alone, their tax bill should be massive. Four pillars of the single market means they don't have to pay any tax here. The people who are most angry about these companies tax affairs are the very same people who want to remain in the EU - Phillip "Wonderclown" Hammond wants to think up massively excessively complex ways to make them pay tax when the solution is very very simple - leave the EU and this nonsense ends forthwith. Turns out, all things being equal, that we have online retail taxes - they're called duty and VAT - and that all you need to do to have them be paid is leave the single market. Easy. But then Hammond is a remoaner so it's not hard to see he's not pretending.
EU membership is a zero-sum game. The richer you get, the more you pay, so what's the point in getting richer as a nation within it? What's the benefit, why try to grow your economy?
These are just a few examples, the stupidity of the whole setup is well documented, there are many more like this, the EU has had many opportunities to sort them all out, reform (and it's not a personality thing because David Cameron as somebody on the continent claimed to me a few days ago else they wouldn't be spitting in the face of their Lord Saviour Macron over reform, they're corrupt and they want to keep it the way it is because they're getting rich as fuck doing it).
Aside from that the UK is world leading many areas of technology that I'm not going to list, but suffice to say they're game changers in energy generation, aviation and various other key areas and I don't want to see the UK asset-stripped any longer.
I can do this without even talking about the rabbit hole of idiocy and irony that is free movement and social dumping but I don't really need to because the economic case alone is cast iron. And yes, every leave voter knows all this, and that leaving the EU means leaving the single market and customs union.
Re: There's always an excuse to increase prices, but...
He meant if there is a reduction in tariffs which there likely will be. The EU single market has very high tariff on imports from outside the single market.
More importantly the EU has started a trade war with both China and the US that we don't want anything to do with, ignoring the EU's pre-existing tariff regime. Tariffs *will* fall when we leave.
I'm not going to talk about the GBP because there are way way too many people in the debate about brexit on all sides who don't have the slightest clue how currency markets work or what happens when the Eurozone comes off life support when the German economy that the entire setup relies on is taking a nose-dive whilst it's still on it.
Back on topic: no, no they won't.