* Posts by codejunky

2018 posts • joined 24 Oct 2011

UK border at risk of exposure post Brexit, warn MPs

codejunky
Silver badge

@ Haku

"I would like to ask those who voted leave because they wanted to close the borders to foreigners"

I worry about those people too. What I dont understand is how some remainers can side with them at the idea of closing the borders just because we left the EU. If those who voted leave to join the world and those voting remain because of trade concerns were to work together then we surely outnumber the racists and self-destructive?

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: how quickly people forget

@AC

"Put those last two together and you're on track for a UKIP government. You'd really prefer to see Farage as PM?!!"

I would have liked to see it. Or at least as a major member of a coalition gov (UKIP have never been tested in gov). They were the only party with an actual plan to leave. They were the only party with a fully costed plan to build enough homes to meet requirements (Farage's UKIP that is, no idea about the current). The EU has serious fears over the UK leaving and with good reason. This isnt a stick to beat them with but accepting the real world and the actual state of the EU is important when the EU tries to dictate instead of negotiate.

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: "I also have a British passport, live in another EU country, and am very anti-EU"

@ John Smith 19

"That's one regular poster whose been noteably absent from this discussion."

Aww John have you missed me? I have been absent because I have not been around but I am flattered your thinking of me. But as you note I have no problem posting my views under my name and more importantly I am in the UK.

I will point out to the AC that while it is very true that a comment can be taken purely on its own merit from being AC (I used to feel that way) it does cause problems when discussing as multiple AC's commenting can get confusing. Its hard to follow which is you and which is someone else. Also it leads to (some?) people assuming you are someone else posting anonymously (such as John here).

*On a more serious note I do enjoy our discussions too John and I hope you dont mind a little humour.

0
0

Millions of moaners vindicated: Man flu is 'a thing', says researcher, and big TVs are cure

codejunky
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: As we all know...

Or to really poke the bear- what about people who believe they are male?

2
0

Europe Commission thunders: Tech firms must do more to remove extremist content

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: more pointless drivel, but, ...

@ inmypjs

I dont expect that is far off.

6
0

UK.gov admits Investigatory Powers Act illegal under EU law

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"Immigration, customs, the usual thing that all countries or trading blocs in the world do."

Ireland as a whole dont want a border. We dont need to put one in the way if we dont want. This is not difficult. If the EU want to make one thats up to them.

"May banned the UK from access to the SM in the Lancaster House speech, she ruled it out then."

Was that before or after the EU dictated that we are in the EU or out of the EU and SM?

"I believe there has to be agreement on three other items first. How can you decide what kind of trade you're doing if you don't even know what the NI/Ireland border looks like first?"

Of course you do you support the other side who are dictating with no leverage. We are leaving. With no deal they get nothing not even those 3. They wont negotiate until we solve their Irish border demand, agree to give them money so they dont have to reduce spending like a net contributor left, and give them rights we wouldnt grant to any country over citizens in this country. That isnt a negotiation and nobody with a brain would agree to such (would you agree to it for the US, China, india, Africa, or anywhere?).

""If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy." - David Davis."

And yet you insist we cannot change our mind and get out of the EU. Even trying to reject the result of a vote over this exact matter.

"We won't be able to change regulations. We can't make our own TV or electrical standards, we'll be tagging on the coat-tails of the rest of the continent. As part of the EU we help set these standards."

What rubbish are you talking? To export it has to meet the target countries standards. Are you telling me we dont trade beyond the EU because you think we need to apply foreign standards here to export to their countries? I cant believe people can be this uninformed.

"It's for the commitments the UK agreed to fund and signed off."

That directly conflicts with your previous statement- "All Brexit was then was a vote to give a lot of money to the EU". As you now agree it is the bill of being in up to a point in the past not the bill to leave. It is a partial cost of staying that will inflate further if we remain. And its legitimacy is in question too.

"Yeah. How do you think the UK will attract inward investment after that?"

Depending on the direction the country takes in its policies very good.

"If you consider a sort of collective national suicide as a way of solving problems, yes."

Again you make a statement based on your assumptions which so far have been shot down in balls of fire. You are the one making up problems, claiming we cant get passed them (not one has yet stood up btw) and insist we must remain. You have a conclusion and will make anything up to reach it. Try the other way.

"Wages are stagnant, zero hours contracts are through the roof, inflation is up, your average millennial doesn't have the money to buy a house, and food bank usage in the UK has never been higher. Glad it's working out for you though."

And you dont seem to understand what is and isnt the EU's fault. All but inflation is because we are still trapped in the EU. Inflation is because finally our currency has come down as the gov and BoE have been trying to do since 2008 to get the country back to working. We are lagging behind because we were trapped in the EU, the EU is years behind recovery, we should be much further on except we are in the EU. The rest of that is because we were trapped in the EU and are still bound by its tariffs.

"That'll be why the ECB is winding up QE next year."

Are you seriously arguing the EU is not years behind recovery? When you say wind up QE what do you mean? They are looking at halving their bond buying. Their interest rates are at 0% and not looking to move. For comparison the US is already unwinding the QE it has already done taking back the money it put in through QE. The UK is looking at raising rates before unwinding the QE it has already done. What you are talking about in 2018 is hopefully to stop increasing QE but to keep the amount the same. So not expanding QE. While the US is already unwinding and heading to normal. The UK is now after the referendum looking to do the same. The EU is still flooding with QE and 0% interest rates and trying to get that inflation you are complaining about further up.

"But when you're in the Brexit suicide cult and are about to drink the kool-aid, I guess you've got a different perspective."

Can you seriously read the above (and please do a little research if you dont believe me) and still think I am the one drinking the kool-aid? Do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you starting to realise you are literally talking nonsense? Not only do you seem to be making up poor excuses for us to remain but you apparently dont even realise the state the EU is in nor understand what is(nt) caused by the EU or brexit, never mind what is or isnt good news.

I dont expect anyone would ever change your opinion but at the very least I hope you look into what you are saying before being so monumentally wrong.

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"I am able to recognise that a Brexit which includes exiting the CU and SM logically means there will be border which in turn means the Troubles will restart. Therefore the UK's best options are cancelling Brexit or staying in the CU and SM."

Or we dont put up a border. If the EU do they can have troubles if they want but why do we need to? The EU are banning us from access to the SM and it is their right if they want. The EU is refusing to negotiate, they have said this openly and without shame. Cancelling brexit would be a stupid idea to appease the unappeasable and undemocratic.

"Not really. If as Davis says it's "regulatory alignment" for all the UK then that's as good as the EEA."

Although it means when we have an election we can actually vote for changes without the EU being in the way. We dont let the US or China run our regulations.

"All Brexit was then was a vote to give a lot of money to the EU"

Ouch what a huge mistake you made. I assume you mean brexit bill which is the EU wish list of fantasy and stupidity. Firstly it is ment to be for the commitments the EU has already made that they want us to pay toward. Which means the bill is the cost of being in the EU not getting out of the EU and that cost can only increase. Second if there is no deal we dont have to give them anything at all (we can choose to if we so wish but its up to us if we want to). So the EU automatically get nothing. No money, no border and no special rights over their citizens unless they negotiate. What concerns me is the people struggling with this concept is the EU and remain supporters.

"And at that point, many people will start to ask the question, "why not stop Brexit"?"

It is a real proof of concept that if you so badly dont want to do something you can make poor excuses not to do it. But just because you dont want to leave the EU for whatever actual reason you are chucking out some of the most laughable problems that you are creating then claiming they are unsolvable. So far I have solved those problems pretty quick and easy. Here is one for you-

Since 2008 the BoE and Treasury have been trying to reduce the strength of the pound to recover from the recession and bring the country back to a normal state before the next one hits. After the referendum result the currency fell sparking inflation and prompting the BoE to prepare for a rate rise. As a result the property market to stop rushing away from affordability.

So lets compare this again in case you somehow think thats bad. The US- rate rises as the economy improves and they are heading towards normal. The UK now out of the EU is starting to move that way. The EU is years behind the recovery.

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"Part of the reason for Brexit as proposed by Leave was taking back control and slowing down immigration. How do you propose that gets done without a border?"

Taking back control yes. Having control over our immigration yes. Control being to do what we want not what others dictate.

"Every country has a customs border except for those countries in a customs union who have a customs border around the outer edge of the countries that make up the union."

So your saying the EU might make a border if they want one? That solves it then. Not our problem and if one appears it is not our fault.

"What would happen if, as threatened by the likes of Farage, the whole of Turkey went through Northern Ireland, do you think the DUP, the Tories, and people who voted leave would be okay with that?"

No. I expect they would demand the illegals be deported. A demand generally shared as far as I am aware.

"I didn't make it up and it's a good name for a bunch of backward God bothering types who want abortion to remain illegal and homosexuality to be illegal."

Ahh so this is only an insult against the Irish. Thats ok then. And are you getting them onside with this? What is your side of this? Do you want a border or no?

"Your quote is wrong, you've changed the text. 1% was the DUP's share of the vote in the elections and as remain won in NI, they cannot be said to be representing NI."

Ahh that makes sense. I didnt realise you were talking about only NI. Ok, but they are supporting brexit so thats good at least.

"NI doesn't want a border. The DUP said they didn't want a border. The government struck a deal without a border. The DUP, who don't represent NI, rejected the deal and forced the government to backtrack."

Did they? Unless the EU has changed their mind they have been insistent on a border. They made it one of 3 dictations before they will negotiate. Which raises the question why they have a negotiator or even talk to ours since we reject their dictations.

"There is no way you can describe the DUP as anything other than a minority, and they don't even represent wishes of the part of the UK which they claim to represent."

Ok. The point is still pretty solid that we voted brexit and so we are doing brexit. No amount of goalpost moving negates that.

1
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"By definition a customs union has a hard border. It has to, otherwise goods could go from the countries outside the CU over the border to the countries inside of the CU avoiding any and all tariffs and controls. If the UK wanted out of the CU, this is the logical result."

Kind of but you missed an important part of that logic, It is the EU who want a border. Step by step- we leave the EU. N Ireland in the UK and so the UK can do as it pleases which includes no border. It is entirely our choice if we do or do not put up a border. Likewise the EU has S Ireland and has the same freedom of choice. We cannot dictate to the EU for them to put up a border and they cannot dictate to us.

"Ireland is an independent country, empire is no more, your suggestion that they stop being upperty and do what the their betters in the UK do is not realistic or useful."

You seem to be putting words in my mouth and making assumptions of some sort of empire. Ireland N and S dont want a border. The EU wants a border. So if the Irish truly dont want a border and the EU is dictating it then they can choose to leave too if they wanted. Its also logical.

"By the way, the DUP have just scuppered a deal. They wanted no border"

I dont see how that is a problem? No border (from our side) is fairly easy to implement. We dont need to change anything there. The EU could but then that would be the EU to blame for the actions of the EU because the EU want it. And I can understand why the EU want a border (hard to run a cartel with a hole) and why they dont want to do it (cost and pissing off the Irish). The EU want their cake and eat it too.

"Brexit is being driven by the Protestant Taliban which won less than 1% of the vote."

Oh wow is this a religious thing now? What about us atheists/agnostics? Who are you then? Al-Qa'ida? ISIS? Since the Taliban ruled the country at one point I am assuming you see yourself as one of the resistance forces fighting to change the country to your perceived right way?

Also you have too many words at the end of your sentence. "Won the vote" is enough. Where do you get 1% from? The difference was greater. So it seems your arguing we should be governed by (using your figure) the -1%, the ones who lost the vote although the difference is more than 1%.

1
3
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"However you measure it, England is not the few."

Very true. But if all but one of the 4 voted one way we would all be hostage under your proposal. Good job the vote rules were laid out before the vote took place instead of moving goalposts afterward to get the 'right' result.

"Sort of like 37%* of the electorate voting for Brexit"

Which would make it vastly wrong to be ruled by the 32%. The leave vote won by majority and to be ruled by the few would be wrong, which is kinda the argument you seem to be making but with a spin for your desired result.

"the Tory government deciding leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union too despite only receiving 29%* of the vote in the 2017 elections"

Which by the electoral process of this country is how we elect leaders. Agree or disagree with it the rules are set before the election.

"and what the DUP are doing now when it comes to how the Irish border will be implemented?"

The Irish border is the EU's diktat which isnt our problem as we are leaving the EU. We can or not implement a border if we desire but thats not for the EU to decide. The EU can decide to make a border if they want one but that wont make Ireland very happy. And if the Irish care so much about no border they could always leave the EU if they like.

1
2
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Lysenko

"I'm not in favour of Scottish independence and I voted against it. However, I'm not in favour of Greater England either"

I dont care about Scottish independence, in the sense that I am happy for the Scots to have their independence vote and choose. And they did. Knowing the size of England and the other countries making up the UK and they made their choice. Not saying they cannot vote again but a neverendum is not the way to go about it.

"I want to stay in the EU and, if I can't, I want to get back in the EU. That makes Scottish independence (now) a means to an end."

Actually you can, you can move to your beloved EU. If they are such a loving bunch of niceness then they will welcome you. Why do you feel you must inflict your will on a country (which wouldnt be allowed EU access anyway independently) when the whole of the UK voted and the decision was made? I will point out that the UK is a member not Scotland and so an independent Scotland would need to reapply, fix its huge deficit to meet the rules, create its own currency not the GBP to be eligible before accepting the Euro and membership without opt outs. It would be easier and less painful for you to just move.

"I don't want Holyrood running riot with unfettered legislative supremacy any more than I want Westminster doing it."

And so you would hand over that supremacy to the EU. The EU who made a signed agreement with Cameron not to use our contribution to bail out the Euro, then did it anyway? The EU who shocked the Fed by inflicting economic suffering on its members? The EU which is shrinking in its share of global wealth? You want to hand over such power to those guys instead of those you can actually vote for/against and have a greater influence? Or do you just blindly want to be in the EU but not willing to go alone, wanting to drag everyone else with you?

1
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Dan 55

"There are after all four geopolitical regions and if some vote to leave but others vote to stay then the first question that immediately arises is about the break-up of the UK."

Well that doesnt work does it? First we are the UK, not 4 independents. Scotland had a vote to leave and decided to remain (although the leave proposals didnt really appear to be leave in any sense anyway) so it is a UK decision on the UK.

Second if it requires all 4 to vote leave then what you are saying is we can be held hostage by the few and that the UK wouldnt have a choice. A similar thing happened with a tiny part of the EU holding the Canada trade deal hostage when the EU (to try and keep its members) allowed all members a veto over the trade deal. I do wonder if Lysenko would disagree with your suggestion as it allows a few to dictate to the many, something he accused of England in this UK wide vote.

The good news is the rules are set before the vote and the result comes from those pre-agreed rules instead of moving goalposts after the fact.

2
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Lysenko

@ Lysenko

"I was born in Scotland to a Scots Mother and an English Father. so I can't still be part of the EU (not without getting Irish citizenship anyway)."

So you can (looking in your brackets).

"England has done to me is revoke my EU citizenship against my will"

Funny I thought this was a UK vote voted for over the UK and beyond and still the result came in to leave. What you are saying is your (individual) will is more important than the UK, which is basically opposition to democracy. If you dont like democracy thats fine, thats your opinion, but dont expect people to be all for your benevolent dictatorship where you take away our will.

"Scotland as a whole voted to remain and England voted to leave"

Scotland voted to remain.... IN THE UK. So a UK vote for the UK is a UK vote for the whole of the UK.

"that means the whole UK has to tag along with whatever England decides from here on in."

You seem to have difficulty with size. UK vote, not England vote. England in UK, UK not in England.

"That's not a future I want to be part of."

Thats fine, I have no problem with that. Go move to your beloved EU and the good news is it will be more likely to be federalist supporting than the UK is. Here you still wouldnt have your federal dream unless some dictator took over and sold us out.

"As for your final point: with a British passport and a Father from Yorkshire I'll attack "this country" and the toxic, racist xenophobes it harbours whenever I feel it is warranted."

Ok thats fine but your opinion is fuelled by what seems to be a hatred for us, which again is your opinion and I dont care. But it does kinda expose why you would want to remain in the EU.

I do note that you are a more obvious example of what I do encounter in vocal remain advocates. If we dont remain in the EU you want to see us crash and burn and turn into the horrible place you seem to see us as. We didnt change overnight so why do you stay in such a horrible country you like to attack as racist xenophobes? Why stay with us horrible Englanders you really do seem to have something against?

4
4
codejunky
Silver badge

@ Lysenko

"No, what you have is a European Federalist."

You do know that after brexit you can still be part of that. The EU will still exist and so will an independent UK as well. However I do think it odd that you care so much about the UK (dont know if you are from here, came here or never even visited) which has so many opt outs and our rejection of the Euro removed our eligibility to be part of a federalist EU (until some traitor sold us out further).

In fact you should be happy for brexit as the UK people have been against ever closer union and being part of the EUSSR/USofE and now that obstacle is leaving freely. It does however mean the other members who dont want to federalise will need some persuasion but it brings you closer to your dream.

So noting all that why do you hope it is the end of the UK? What has the UK done to so offend you? And instead of demanding freedom of choice be removed and that democracy is second to your oh wise opinion maybe you should consider applying to move to your utopia? Instead of your attacks on this country.

5
8

Why does no one want to invest in full fibre broadband, wails UK.gov

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Anonymous Blowhard

@ Charlie Clark

"So, like motorways, airports or railways? More evidence that you have a very poor idea of how the world works."

Well said! With the EU desperate to throw cash the Poland made airports larger than will ever be needed. The Greeks in the same way built a rail network that would never be able to pay for itself (unsustainable). The US with its roads to nowhere.

So you think its a good idea to rob the tax payer for these projects built for larger capacities than could ever be ROI justified? If so I truly have no idea how your world works. This isnt about creating a connection from point to point, this is about taking something already working for the majority and spending vast sums more to make it a bit better which serves the few but costs the many.

0
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Anonymous Blowhard

@ Anonymous Blowhard

"I meant to add that the likelihood is that, for the country as a whole, the ROI is positive. But the ROI will be hugely positive for some areas and hugely negative for others, so private investment wants only to do the profitable bits."

I can accept that it would be more beneficial in some places than others. So why wont the private do it anyway in the positive areas as it has so far with general internet service? If there is demand then the places worth investing in would be doing so.

"Like other national infrastructure projects (e.g. the armed forces) we spread the bill amongst tax payers on the basis that they will all, in theory, benefit from the investment."

That is a good example. There is an article already on the reg about the over expensive drones which dont seem to have much use but to employ people in the UK. We could buy already working drones if we cared about the armed forces but no. Same with a lot of military kit including weapons that actively do not even work. Another example is the expected over-budget and expected under performing HS2 project in the national interest with little chance of being worth it.

The gov will always find ways of spending money that isnt theirs. Doesnt mean there will be any benefit.

"If we see broadband as a national imperative, with benefits across multiple sectors (employment, commerce, education etc.)"

To what extent? There will be a point where more investment returns reduced improvement. We can already remote commute/communicate, buy online, learn online for the majority of the countries population. Bumping up their speed without a need will give them a slightly faster experience they are not willing to pay for (or we would already be doing it). Taking the money off them and forcibly spending it on an upgrade 'for their own good' doesnt really help them.

3
5
codejunky
Silver badge

@ Anonymous Blowhard

"At the moment the problem is that, for the majority of the UK, there is no commercial incentive to roll out fibre. It's a bit like there's no commercial incentive for private companies to build toll roads to villages; the costs are so high that you would never get a viable user base to pay it off faster than the interest on the capital investment accrues."

"So it has to be seen as a national infrastructure project"

Sorry to chip in here but why? I included the large paragraph above of yours which points out it is expensive and has no ROI (it isnt worth doing so nobody wants to do it) so why do taxpayers have to be fleeced to do something there isnt the customers for (lack of demand)? Maybe listening to what people want (or in this case dont) is a good idea.

"Trying to create a "market" for this to attract private investment has been a failing policy since Margaret Thatcher cancelled BT's project in 1990."

In what way?

3
8

Surveillance Capitalism thinks it won, but there's still time to unplug it

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: What now

@ The obvious

"they fire up a website that reports all their activity back to google's giant data hoover"

Ok, and so what? If you really dont want things reporting use a memory only linux with a browser with all the blocking addons and vpn/tor. That way the data that does get sucked up is worthless.

"Sometimes choice is an illusion"

Unfortunately that feeling of 'all hope is gone' brings about the situation. People saying 'they will do it anyway' and so dont choose an alternative but instead just go along head first into it. What it usually means is people want the fancy new feature and are willing to trade their data for it. Not a bad trade when you want to find something on google and for those who disagree use something else.

1
4
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: What now

@AC

"Remaining choice is practically zero"

No it isnt. We have freedom we have choice. When the lemmings all walk together they feel happy, and so what why shouldnt they? If they want smart X, Y, Z let them buy it. I have a non-smart phone and I bought it not because I increase tin foil sales but because I have no use for smart features and just want a phone.

We dont have to buy win10, in fact I have been moving people to linux. Not because of a lust for jamming devices just because they find it easier for them.

I have an old MP3 player working off a AA battery in preference to the gizmo's out there. Cheap and does all I want and more.

Now imagine if you really cared even half a hoot about ducking surveillance. Disk only versions of linux designed by default to be anonymous. Non-smart tech everywhere and going cheap. Easy access to the TOR network, VPN's and proxies.

People still exist in the outside world.

9
6

Abolish the Telly Tax? Fat chance, say MPs at non-binding debate

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Dave Filesystem

@ John Brown (no body)

"All of Freeview, Freesat, Virginmedia and Sky offer PVR boxes which can record live TV and all carry the BBC channels."

Yes the commercial items offer the ability to record and skip. What you quoted was selective but the important bits are highlighted below-

"This is a simple transaction. Sky offers what people want and people pay for it. Even with the downside of adverts it is not intrusive enough to be a problem. Even better than that sky gives you a way to skip the adverts by recording live TV. Can we imagine the same for the BBC?"

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Dave Filesystem

@ tiggity

"You pay Sky, but still have to suffer adverts on Sky channels

Please explain the value for money there?

That always baffled me about Sky."

This is a simple transaction. Sky offers what people want and people pay for it. Even with the downside of adverts it is not intrusive enough to be a problem. Even better than that sky gives you a way to skip the adverts by recording live TV. Can we imagine the same for the BBC? Tolerating it even with adverts and having to pay for it? I cant. When the BBC puts on its adverts its for more BBC crap I couldnt care less about vs various attempts to make me buy something I dont care about. At least the other channel has something worth watching.

"I'm sure many people regard Trident as pretty useless in terms of defence other than when it's a situation of global thermonuclear war"

I am sure some do. But that has nothing to do with the discussion with Pen-y-gors who seemed to be comparing the BBC to the defence of the country. As if the two were comparable.

*As for trident it is a bit off topic but I can see the argument for it. What I am still waiting on is the argument for the BBC.

2
0
codejunky
Silver badge

@ lorisarvendu

"The reason the BBC keeps reporting negative Brexit stories is because that's all there are"

"All the reports I've heard so far are predictions of things getting worse"

"What's the BBC to do? Make up positive spin? That's the Government's job."

I think those lines sum up the problem pretty well. All you have heard are negative stories, all the BBC reports is negative and then you mention the governments job of spin yet the BBC and the gov are pretty much singing the same song.

The interesting problem with not hearing any good news has been already explained by the 'despite' claims when things go well. Look at how terrible the pound dropping was, Carney and Osborne warning us all of the doom. Except as Mervyn king pointed out it has been the objective of the gov and BoE since 2008 because it is part of the recovery.

The BBC doesnt need to put on a positive spin. They just have to remove the negative spin.

7
4
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Dave Filesystem

@ Pen-y-gors

"Quite agree. And we should also abolish tax on fags and booze, and VAT on sugary foods and drinks. That's what people actually want."

Interesting you see TV as a sin. Tobacco, booze and even the cries for sugar tax's are all tax's based on trying to change peoples behaviour by taxing a sin or vice. Of course it doesnt work completely which is why cigs are still smoked and have been subject to various regulatory attacks because apparently the freedom to make your own choices is bad. I do ask if freedom to do what people want is a bad thing (see your examples). Second hand smoke etc is a problem so places for smokers makes sense but the clamp down does seem to be a nannying issue. Also the idea of a minimum price on alcohol is not based on the real world, its just another way to fleece people. And of course sugar, the thing used throughout history that people want.

"Also I don't want to use a Trident. Does that mean we should pay for WMDs on a subscription basis?"

I am not sure if you think the BBC is as important as defending the country, or if you think the countries defence is as worthless as the BBC. Feel free to pick one.

"Sometimes it is in the interest of society as a whole to do things which individuals may not fully appreciate. Public education is one of those things."

Again you seem to misunderstand. We are ment to be discussing the BBC which you are now comparing with education (feel free to argue the education system is becoming as worthless as the BBC even though education is a public good). But pointing out that defence and education are good things paid from a central taxation does not translate to the BBC being so. Your gonna have to link those up if you want to have a real grounding for the BBC's value as a general taxation organisation.

People can and do pay for actual TV content they deem worth their personal time and work hours. People have so much access to information cheaply that the BBC as a news outlet is just another provider (their amusing biases do require other sources to be anywhere near informed). So what is the value of the BBC? If it is dr who and strictly I have nothing against that and it is nothing to be ashamed of, but it isnt my thing and I have other things I do actually like and pay for.

7
4
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Dave Filesystem

@ Dan 55

"Why do you claim that Sky subscribers don't watch the BBC?"

Actually the question is why do you think they do? And if you assume they do then you would be happy for those channels to be charged separately as they would all obviously still pay to use the BBC (tv, radio, website, whatever). That people have to pay for the BBC as they pay for the content they obviously want (they had to subscribe for sky) does not mean they watch it, only that there is no way to watch the content they want without paying an additional competitor.

"If some IoT virus were to go around which removed Freeview and Freesat channels from the their Sky box EPG, people might realise how little they're really getting for 60 quid or more."

True. Just as the BBC vanishing off air might take a while to notice unless the other media kicked up a fuss.

4
3
codejunky
Silver badge

@ Dave Filesystem

"Many of the petition signatories will be paying £60+ for Sky.

Losers."

So the ones who are willing to pay for the content they want to watch are losers? I agree. They also have to cough up for the BBC even if it provides nothing of interest to them and are of no benefit to them. In that way we certainly are losers.

If the BBC didnt have the TV tax it would either vanish as a colossal failure or cut down to what people actually want to use. Their fear of the real world is justified.

8
8

Royal Navy destroyer leaves Middle East due to propeller problems

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Really!

@ Voland's right hand

"He is biased. He would not give you the real option which "financially constrained" countries do when facing a budget shortfall and a numerically superior enemy."

Yes he is biased. He seems to acknowledge it too. An interesting amount of his book concerns the price paid by us vs others who made similar purchases. Interestingly his argument was to keep our budget but to have far more and far better. An interesting section of that being the SA80 which sucked until we gave it to others to solve and then it became tolerable. The machine gun apparently made a great low power sniper rifle but was almost incapable of being an LMG so the MOD blew the money and then had to buy what the americans use (because it worked) the Minimi.

We have 2 aircraft carriers too short to launch aircraft from. They require vertical takeoff aircraft and so the aircraft are more expensive and harder to maintain. We have lots of higher up commanding officers who do not need to be there apparently. If we are so small why do we have so many paper pushers? Uniformed or not? Why do we insist on paying BAE to provide over budget and under spec equipment instead of buying what works? Why buy the eurofighter which sucks, then pay more to modify them in this country further to do a job they are not designed for? Why make our own cruise missile which is less capable and more expensive when there is one available to buy?

"There are two types of countries in Europe: ones that are small and ones that are yet to realize it"

I do agree with this. We dont need to waste money like the US, USSR or the EU. We can instead live within our means which can be aircraft carriers, a solid army, trident, better aircraft both combat and transport. Instead of buying Apache helicopters but not the software because we want jobs here (who couldnt do it anyway) we can instead buy what works and so put more money to the people fighting.

8
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Really!

@ Lost all faith...

"Would it be followed by a Buy USA, then us being screwed over by the Yanks?"

Yes and no. We buy what works and cheaper and with none of the stupidity that usually goes with our projects.

6
3
codejunky
Silver badge

Really!

"The withdrawal of the destroyer reveals the wider problem that lack of funding, and all the knock-on effects that causes, has on the Royal Navy."

This is where I do miss Lewis. I would expect to hear of the useless frigates, Euro-fighters, F35-B and 2 half arsed carriers sucking up the budget. I cant imagine he would be suggesting a lack of funding, only a lack of it going to the right things.

38
2

London mayor: Self-driving cars? Not without jacked-up taxes, you don't!

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Khan being an idiot on this one

@ DavCrav

It really does show where his loyalty lies when his issue is money.

24
2

UK.gov to chuck an extra £2.3bn at R&D ahead of Budget

codejunky
Silver badge

@ Doctor Syntax

"I hope this has been better thought out"

I cant imagine this time will be much better this time around. But of course we can all hope.

0
0

MPs slam HMRC's 'deeply worrying' lack of post-Brexit customs system

codejunky
Silver badge

Finally

Good news for leave voters. The EU is finally coming around to the fact that we are leaving. While they seem to have been slow on the uptake they appear to realise we will not be in the EU and therefore not under the EU (who would have thought leave would mean that?!? Apart from anyone with a brain).

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-trade-barnier-dashes-britains-hopes-of-something-better-than-canada-deal/

Even more unsurprising (I would hope) the EU is starting to realise that trade is a mutual thing and an FTA would be a good idea. They now think a Canada style standard FTA might be the way to go.

I guess now we just have to see how long it takes for this realisation to be translated into giving their negotiators the freedom to negotiate.

0
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky

@ anonymous boring coward

"Yes, but that's not true either. (And to be more correct, the campaign didn't use the word "could".)"

I know. It was the usual politician speak or also known as duping the electorate. Its in a similar vain as Carney and Osborne claiming that everything the UK has been trying to achieve since 2008 is suddenly bad. Both official campaigns were awful.

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ Roland6

"Cameron did get an agreement, just that he made our acceptance conditional on the referendum"

Sort of. Simply it was an agreement which was shoddy in its binding (https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-it-legally-binding/) which is not an agreement. He had an agreement not to use GBP to prop up Greece and the EU did it anyway so the EU has no form on keeping to agreements.

"Agree - but there is a nice irony to having a Conservative party/government, committed to a small state, massively increasing the size of the civil service :)"

Do they still try to claim this? If they do I wonder if anyone believes them. Really does seem to be slim pickings for parties wanting to reduce the civil service (or having the guts to do so).

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

@ Roland6

"Well if you look at what he did get agreement on, there were some important slow burners in there."

He didnt get an agreement. The proposals would have to be voted on unanimously once the referendum was over. Cameron got nothing.

"it is clear the current government haven't got a clue, other than how to waste vast sums of public money."

I think that sums up governments pretty well. This one no different.

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: "(showing my age there)."

@ John Smith 19

"That was more an impression of all those Daily Heil editorials and the Leave leadership I think."

I am amazed you think 52% of the population get their information from that one paper. What paper do you read that tells you that?

"There really was something quite funny about people who didn't want furriners wanting to bar Europeans but happy to have a whole load more of a whole lot more darker skinned folk from the former colonies. Utterly non-sensical to the point of delusion."

I agree. And again I only ever hear these arguments from racists (rarely hear them) and remainers (scarily frequent). I have been concerned since the referendum that both these groups would get together with a common cause to close up the UK, one thinking its for our own good and one to watch the country burn.

1
1
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: "Sorry I am honestly confused."

@ John Smith 19

"Then perhaps you shouldn't have voted in the first place?"

Because your comment is either for leaving the EU or resigning yourself to a system you consider bad? Surely your considering that system bad would cause you to want to move away from it?

"Only if you bi**ed about it endlessly while doing nothing constructive about changing it while you are a part of that system."

Thats interesting. So remainers are going to work with us to make brexit work? Or do you mean Cameron's amusing attempt to get minor and fairly pointless concessions from the EU or he will campaign to leave (he didnt get them and he didnt campaign to leave). Or before that where he had a written agreement that the GBP contribution would not be used to prop up the EUR (Greece) and then they did it anyway. In a system which refuses to reform even when it knows its going to the wall.

"British people seem to have some hazy, comfortable, idyllic view of the British Countryside which was bul***hit in the 19th century and is a total fantasy in the 21st."

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

1
2
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: "I presume David Davis and his fellows will vanish post-Brexit, "

@ smudge

Damn I was really hoping for an answer to that one (from you or anyone who knows what your talking about) instead of up/down votes

0
0
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Gah!

@ Pen-y-gors

"And as a matter of principle, there can never be a soft border."

Thats why the EU rejects it. The EU wants a hard border otherwise Ireland as a whole will gain the benefits of being in and out.

"Remember 'taking back control of our borders'"

Economics, trade, law, sovereignty and borders. Yup borders are a reason. We do what we like with our own, including in Ireland.

"making sure that nasty foreigners can't enter beautiful green UK-land without permission"

from my perspective this is an odd statement repeated only by racists and remain supporters. I am not sure if remain supporters hold the same views as racists, desire the UK to become racist or seriously need to tell themselves something to make themselves feel better about leaving the EU.

"Yep, Brexit will be so easy."

It will if we come to no agreement with the EU. That way the UK can do what it likes about the Irish border that the Irish dont want and we obviously dont seriously care about (back to your comment on soft borders). I wonder if the EU will have the guts to piss of the Irish. I wonder if the EU dreams of a Berlin wall kind of thing. But I wonder more why our gov seems to insist on trying to negotiate with the EU who obviously are either unwilling or unable to negotiate.

0
2
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @codejunky

@AC

"I don't see how people airing their views on the mess the leavers have created is "trying to get in the way of brexit.""

Thats fine, that is the expected as we get with elections as we let off steam about a result we dont like. But legal challenges to stop the result being carried out is. As is unelected party members undermining the government. As is elected party members undermining the government. Add the ongoing propaganda campaign and constant misinformation (just read what I have been replying to on this topic) with repeated attempts to get a second referendum to undo the not yet implemented result of the previous referendum. Those are attempts to get in the way of brexit. We knew the referendum had the possibility of leave when it was proposed yet right now is this customs issue. Why? Is it the gov or civil service dragging their feet on this? And why? The result is known, hard brexit is very well expected so why?

"Yes, hilarious. So much so I was in danger of splitting my sides, which could've been life threatening if it weren't for that extra £350m/week the NHS are now getting."

The official leave campaign was almost as bad as the official remain campaign I know. What has that to do with Farage? He didnt campaign on that, the £350m could be given to the NHS was the official campaigns claim.

0
4
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Why do we need to import anything...

@AC

"Well, we could ask the experts. Most economists think that our farming industry would not be able to compete with cheaper imports without increasing payments to them from the government."

Ok. So we can either be forced to buy overpriced home grown (subsidy) or we all have cheaper food. And it is unlikely who whole farming market would collapse, they would likely do something productive that meets a need/desire that we are not forced to subsidise. This would also help poor countries better than our aid programs.

"as going to WTO would be"

I have yet to hear this disaster of WTO. Some people seem to think we have to charge the maximum tariffs or something but the WTO sets maximum tariffs. As discussed above the farming policy in the EU is protectionist, and of course to the detriment of the poor world who can supply that market cheaper.

"because the experts seem fairly united in believing it won't."

You gave 2 examples. 1 who thinks its a good idea, one who thinks its bad. If you count nobody as thinking its a good idea then you may need to reword your comment. Are we trying to support farmers or the population of the country? Are farmers more important than everyone else in this country? I dont consider them less important but I dont see how they are more important. We cant grow enough to support the population here. We import a great amount of our food.

"Even if we did benefit in the short term from reducing the tariffs to zero for cheaper food it is doubtful that would happen over the long-term. Once we are entirely reliant on imports the importers can start increasing the prices. Long-term we are looking at significant food price increases."

Well that doesnt work does it. China had the monopoly on rare earths so bumped up the price to take advantage. But it is a contestable monopoly and Australia took that monopoly away because they could do it cheaper than China would sell it. Same with oil prices now with OPEC and fracking. Are you telling me it is harder to restart agriculture if it becomes cost effective to do so? And since it would be raising the quality of life in the poorer countries that we can buy food from it would reduce the worlds poor and dying. Long term its a pretty good policy.

0
2
codejunky
Silver badge

@ John Smith 19 native UK farming industry

"Fat cats don't like having their cream supply cut off, so don't be too surprised if your little free market fantasy "suddenly" develops a few hitches."

I am not sure if your comment is for the EU or against. It seems to say that the current system is that and it is bad (ok I will accept) but on leaving we might have the same bad system. If we dont try to move away from a bad system then we are guaranteed the bad system.

Sorry I am honestly confused.

0
2
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ ZSn

@ Christoph

"Apart from this one, you mean?"

Exactly, the EU didnt exist then, that was a vote for something different. Thanks for making my point but it wasnt necessary, this ground has been covered many times.

1
5
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ ZSn

@ Alt C

"it was an offence to mis-catagorise bananas and sell them. In the UK selling class B bananas as class A was an offence exactly the same as it is under the EU directive."

I direct you and the others above including ZSn who didnt believe it was true-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/12/to-properly-explain-the-eus-bendy-bananas-rules-yes-theyre-real/#74db7ce96fc9

To make it clear this started with a lack of belief that this law existed and now having to tell you about the law your defending.

"I never said anything about not agreeing with food standards please read again."

So what is your argument about the chicken? Or do you assume it wont be labelled as such because the EU wont be singing you to bed every night?

"the key words there are 'being described as' - i.e. passing one product off as another - its what these regulations you find so funny stop happening."

No no no you have already said and I requote- "it was an offence to mis-catagorise bananas and sell them. In the UK selling class B bananas as class A was an offence exactly the same as it is under the EU directive." which I assume you meant mis-selling regulations which surely apply further than bananas since its the EU who criminalised bendy bananas and we thought they were nuts for it.

"I'll ignore rest of the rant as the usual tangental argument brexiteers indulge in."

You do usually I am used to it. I do find yours entertaining though.

@ H in The Hague

"Mate, I don't know where you get your idea that all bureaucracy comes from the EU."

Mate I dont know where you get your idea that I think that.

"The only upside I can see to Brexit is that when the powers that be can no longer blame stuff on Brussels, folk might realise that rather a lot of red tape (some of it useful, some of it not) is entirely homegrown."

I actually hope this does cause a cut in our red tape. An amount from the EU, an amount of bad implementation of EU ideas and plenty home grown.

"And as far as produce description (= consumer protection) legislation is concerned, the UK used to have that in the past too, and hopefully will still have it in future."

Tell Alt C that. He seems to think it is all going.

1
2
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Gah!

@ Alt C

"money - we agreed to be in a club with fees for a certain period"

How much? The laughed at 60bn figure that was discredited or the 100bn that was painstakingly line by line discredited? And I dont recall us agreeing to be in the club for a certain period, otherwise we wouldnt be able to leave. But we are and we can and the EU is entitled to nothing. We should (as a moral argument) pay our existing bill which was something like 35bn ish. Be aware that part of that 'bill' is government backing of loans, in this case the EU backing of loans. So if we are on the hook for our whole portion then the EU must be incompetent as it loaned money with no chance of getting it back. Feel free to say they are incompetent or by the same token you agree with their bill.

"EU citizens get special treatment - just like we expect all those pensioners we exported to spain and france to get special treatment"

Do we? EU citizens wanting to remain here apply and get UK passports, UK citizens over there get EU passports. How is that complicated? The EU wanting its court to rule over EU citizens in this country (their demand) is an amusing joke but no.

"personally I'd like the EU to tell us to piss off"

We agree on something

"Irish border - once again both sides wanted one. your claiming the UK disn't want one doesn't change the facts."

UK soft border to appease EU proposed. EU rejects. EU wants much stronger (aka hard) border. EU gonna be disappointed and throw toys out of pram. Not our problem.

@ Doctor Syntax

"And we, apparently, want out. Well, it's us making the initial approach and if we really want out then we just have to accept the price because it's the EU that's in a position to set it."

Wow thats funny but sad if you mean it. We want out, thereby we leave. The EU can do nothing about that. You see the lack of papers on our negotiators desks at the beginning, thats because its the EU who must start the negotiation and since they wont negotiate we owe them nothing, nada, zip, nil, null and none. The entitlement attitude gets them nowhere because we dont need anything from them. We can leave without their approval no problem. Now if the EU would like mutual trade so would we. But they dont. They want a hard border, a bunch of cash and incredible rights over our country. And they are entitled to? You guessed it- nothing, nada, zip, nil, null and none.

"You never realised that before you voted "yes"? Why-ever not?"

Because I am not desperately routing for the EU to the exclusion of fact.

0
7
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ ZSn

@ Alt C

"Please just stop - we had the same fsking law in the UK before the EU directive - how many more times?"

We had a criminal law in the UK before the EU criminalised it? We criminalised the shape of a banana before the EU criminalised the shape of a banana?

1
8
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @AC

@ Alt C

"i'll take a leap here and guess you voted condervative"

Good leap but no. I dont hold a grudge for you trying.

"can't seem to negotiate or get it into their heads - we left the club the EU owes us no favours"

You know what I absolutely agree. Seriously, I am not impressed with the governments faffing over this. If the EU doesnt want to negotiate we cannot force them to unless we conquer them (obv not going to happen) and by the same right we owe the EU nothing unless they wish to conquer us (again not going to happen). This is where both sides are free to negotiate or not as they deem fit, and the EU has made 3 non-negotiable demands that we reject, so no negotiation, nobody owes anybody anything. Unfortunately some muppets (PM included) keep going over to try and make a negotiation happen.

"David and his crew that are being incompetent with their rainbows and unicorn wish list."

Not sure about that. I havnt followed him particularly but our side of the negotiations seem to have been pretty friendly considering the EU negotiator isnt allowed to negotiate. Hell our side even proposed some solutions to EU problems (the Irish border for example and the bill the EU wants).

I lay the blame on those in gov who reject brexit and seek to undermine it. Even Clegg and Corbyn have been accused of trying to make agreements to remain which is not only fanciful but also undermines the actual working parts of the government trying to make brexit happen.

0
7
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: @ ZSn

@ Alt C

"You mean like how we extensivly catagorise what everything is during trade negotiations to ensure everyone is working from a common understanding and framework?"

Oh how the world was in chaos and fell apart until.... the EU finally applied a law to bendy bananas. It wasnt a criminal issue before but the EU fixed the world as it put pen to paper and made me laugh as it dictated the shape of a banana. And now we all sing and dance now the worlds problems have finally been solved after all these years of previously not having a criminal law against the bent banana.

"Yes the UK had catgories for bananas before the EU directive."

Surely you are picking up on this by now. Catagory != criminal law. Criminal law != category.

"I'm sure you will be looking forward to your chlorine washed chicken being described as farm fresh organic food?"

Isnt that the one the EU food standards passed as perfectly fine? And the US? And I dont know of the UK food standards having a problem with it (I am sure every remoaner would have screamed about it if so). So if a good chunk of the developed world food standards agencies think its ok I could listen to the experts or I could listen to.... dont you guys like experts? Or is it only when they tell you what you want to hear? I lay bets you consume things far worse than chlorine washed chicken.

"I presume in your world caveat emptor is the only way to go?"

I presume by that you are declaring your rejection of food standards agencies. The very agencies who approve this food and you consider that caveat emptor. Go on please do explain.

0
10
codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Gah!

@ Alt C

"Oh come on please - i know you support brexit but the reality distortion field is strong on this one. Please try reading up before you post nonsense."

See below

"NI and the RoI don't want a border - true."

What I said.

"UK wants the border at the EU ports in RoI and won't entertain the hard border being at the NI ports. The EU doesn't like that idea because it messes up free movement within the EU."

No. What? Eh? The UK has made suggestions because the EU demands 3 things- money, EU citizens get special treatment and Irish border.

"Both sides want a proper border with customs checks etc they just can't agree where it would be."

The EU want a border because it isnt a cartel if there is a huge gaping hole in it. The UK offered a soft border but the EU reject it because the EU cant have a cartel if there is a huge hole in it.

"The technology for a totally soft border isn't there yet"

I know, the UK knows as we tried it before. Just to repeat- the EU want a border because it isnt a cartel if there is a huge hole in it.

"its also very expensive "

Which is why the EU want the UK to make the border because the EU cant have a cartel if there is a huge hole in it.

"To claim it is all the EUs fault is not just disengenous but a lie."

See above and then take the first part of your comment I quoted and imagine me saying it to you.

0
13

Coming live to a warzone near you: Army Truck Driver for Xbox!

codejunky
Silver badge

Re: Nothing will change

I am working my way through Lewis's book at the moment and it really does seem to ring true still the problems back then.

1
0

Universal basic income is a great idea, which is also why it won't happen

codejunky
Silver badge

Hmm

Makes sense to let other countries trial it and if it works then we can consider it. I like the idea of UBI as we wont need a load of public servants for a simple system that supports the needy efficiently. But I am not convinced that the price of everything will be adjusted up because everyone having a guaranteed value income could make that UBI the new zero (all prices factor it in and move up). Also it would neuter government vote buying which they wont like as they cant pander to welfare issues (or more likely they will move away from UBI to bribe their voters).

Of course to afford it would require everyone to pay much more in tax. Unless we are ditching other public services for it but that wont win votes either.

1
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017