Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?
Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted?
1219 posts • joined 17 Jul 2007
Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted?
At least it's somewhere nice and close, without a big time difference for collaboration.
By not defining whether leave meant leave the EU but remain in the EEA (perhaps by returning to the EFTA which we left to join the EEC) or leave everything, leave voters were voting for a leap in the dark.
What if we are pushed into a big hole? That's project fear, no one is talking about being pushed into a big hole.
The end result is we are jumping into the hole. (Not being pushed)
So whose fault is it? Those who gave the government an open mandate or those who scammed them into doing so?
Notice I said Sinclair rather than ZX experience, I was more thinking of the QL.
So an authentic Sinclair experience then?
Who would have thought that becoming a third country means we have to play by the same rules as all other third countries?
But I'm not paying hundreds of quid for an Android phone to get one.
I did buy a Q5 and it was starting to look good with all the updates fixing the omissions and then they pulled the plug.
So I got a cheap (dual sim) Android tablet phone. I don't see myself changing, (maybe a Gemini).
Non secret messages are stored on their servers (as I understand, encrypted and striped across multiple jurisdictions, to require multiple court orders to be accessed).
These are available to any logged in device, and the access by default requires a code from a text. A state could require a telco to intercept this and therefore gain access to the history. (But it can be configured to require a password too).
(This wouldn't provide access to secret messages though.)
Of course this weakness is because of its convenience for multiple device use. (ie friends and family with dumb or otherwise unsupported phones, can still use it on computers and tablets. It can be installed on a work phone, but with a personal number, avoiding the need to carry two phones, etc.)
Of course it was stolen.
Targeted lies, illegal levels of spending and an ambiguous question.
If you believe the vote is sound you don't believe in democracy.
Either we should be going for the Norway model or there should be a second referendum which actually states leaving the EU & EEA.
And if it turns out that the vote really is sound, then the result would be the same.
But you know it isn't, and don't want your preferred result overturned.
The French are highly protective of their language, no way will they be happy with the legacy of their relenting on their (ultimately proven justified) blocking the UK joining the EU being their language being of a lower status than before we joined.
Where is the democracy in asking one question then acting as though a different question were asked?
And that is before we start thinking about Cambridge Anal. or the illegal campaign overspend.
As a country we are reliant on selling services to the internal market to pay for all these imports.
If your position were the Norway model then it wouldn't be totally moronic.
It would have problems though. (The biggest being getting your voice counted for this option)
As soon as we can make our own trade deals, rules of origin comes into play, and customs borders are required.
This would be no problem for a country on the way in from outside, (like Norway, that decided that was where it wanted to be).
But for a country that has a peace agreement ending a civil war that depends on no border and manufacturing businesses that have developed to treat the entire EU as one country it is not going to be totally beneficial.
I don't think it's as simple as that.
My hypothesis is that it was a perfect storm.
Obviously there were a number of thick racists.
There were a large number of gullible people who accepted untruths as facts. (And the fact that they accepted these lies about foreigners without question, obviously raises the possibility of low level racism. i.e. thinking the worst of people from elsewhere.)
Then there are the vested interests. They know that this Brexit will decimate (at best) the UK economically, socially and Internationally. But that would be to their advantage.
Lawyers and Logistics firms are obviously going to make a mint during the transition.
Investors buying up bankrupt businesses (or even those where the value has dropped for the intellectual property) have a huge opportunity.
Russia would obviously benefit from the UK leaving the EU and no longer disproportionately influencing it in favour of American interests.
There are almost certainly a large number of oligarchs whose profits have been seriously hit by the EU sanctions which we championed. It would certainly make good business sense the invest a sum of money to remove the UK from the EU to prevent such things happening again. (And the added benefit the the UK would effectively place economic sanctions on its biggest sector, poetic justice.)
And they could be pretty sure Putin would not interfere with any such projects.
And Russia is certainly not the only foreign power that the UK out of the EU would benefit.
Switzerland is NOT a member of the EEA. (It has obtained a similar arrangement through decades of trade deals, but there are differences such as banking)
The UK has over 4 times as many citizens as the entire EFTA, so it is unlikely they would be particularly keen on us joining, especially given how much consideration we give to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However the EU would bend over backwards to allow us to stay in the EEA.
But they certainly wouldn't bend over forwards, which is metaphorically what they would have to do to be compatible with Mrs May's red lines.
So I guess they'll just have to content themselves with 40 billion and a huge chunk of our big businesses.
On topic, the domain issue makes sense, because we are primarily services and those that rely on the internal market will either have to stop trading or relocate. And those are the ones that would need an EU domain.
If you are providing a service that does not need to be under the same regulatory system as the users it would make more sense to have a .com because it would not be limited to the EU/EEA.
I have heard that the testes of a man who has killed a rhino, have exactly the same medicinal properties.
Only if it a block on non French ownership.
I doubt there would be any serious issues if it were a block on non-EEA ownership.
In fact what's the betting the whole EU adopts it? (Perhaps April next year.)
I have no desire to use a smaller touchscreen.
It is actually quite nice to be offline when I don't want to carry it.
(I have a Q10 that I use when I need to carry a phone at work)
And if they don't watch BBC why should they pay for it?
Before the merger with BSB, Sky didn't need a licence. (Wasn't classified as a broadcaster due to the band used, that was fixed that when the merger happened.) I knew several people who subscribed and didn't have a licence (or a problem with the authorities).
Iron Fist was good, (it just could have been a couple of episodes shorter.)
But the argument is not about whether the BBC is good or crap or whether the alternatives are, it is whether you should have to pay a tax on streaming live TV to fund it.
I disagree with your opinion that the BBC makes nothing good.
However what I object to is being forced to 'subscribe' to it, if I wish to watch other services.
The amount of good stuff that I personally would want to watch does not justify the fee (for me personally).
What rankles is that I am, as a consequence, also denied streaming non funded channels.
I used to just buy the DVDs, it was cheaper.
However, I have far too many disks and am only buying content on Ultraviolet now.
In the absence of the current Dr Who series being available on it, I will just have to wait until I'm somewhere I can watch it, legally.
The TV licence is a tax on watching live TV.
I am totally OK with the idea of needing a TV licence to watch iPlayer and live BBC, and it was very nice of them to allow me to watch iPlayer for all those years for free. (I have never owned a colour TV licence, I had a black and white licence and TV, for the occasional live TV, until the licences were no longer provided by the post office, and the corner shops I tried were unable to provide one, and I got a threatening letter, when I was away from home for a while, so i ditched the TV)
The thing I object to is not being allowed to watch live non licence funded channels.
(Given the technical situation, the most sensible solution would be to allow streaming online of non funded channels, and worry about the over the air broadcast situation next time standards are due to change.)
Technically I suspect they are commissioned. But they wouldn't happen if Netflix didn't pay for them.
Peaky Blinders is excellent. (But also available on Netflix, if you don't mind waiting.) But whenever I'm in the Premier Inn (Abysmal wifi, that only seems to stay connected for more than a couple of minutes on Linux or BB10, limiting your options for streaming) I do confirm I'm not missing much by not having a TV licence at home.
Fair enough for over the air broadcast, but why is a TV licence still required for live online streaming?
Because it really is in the interests of the EU to let us have our cake and eat it.
Any data business would be insane to risk their business model by staying put and hoping that will be the case.
I suspect if it gets down to no legally binding agreement 12 months away, they will relocate to stay within the EEA.
The only trade deals they are likely to offer us are continuing EEA membership and customs union membership, under similar terms to now.
If we asked for those, they would bend over backwards to make them happen. (But they wouldn't drop freedom of movement for the EEA).
Since we are not asking for that, they are simply enabling us to procrastinate until we are so close to the April 2019 cut off point with no idea of the end result, that the businesses that rely of single market membership will have no choice but to commit to move to remain in the EEA. This could take 10% - 20% of our industry overseas (one estimate was 30%).
Once they have started to move, we are stuffed. Even if we get an extension, or a soft brexit.
In the same section of the manifesto that made it clear the result would be honoured, there was a big commitment to the single market.
So it is fine to drop one part but not the other is it?
We have just had a demonstration of what a back door can do when made public.
In this case it was an accidental back door, kept secret by the NSA, easily patched by Microsoft, but it still caused havoc.
Now imagine a back door that can't be patched in every device. (Obviously this would have to be country specific, I can't imagine the US and Russia sharing the same system, for example).
When the key escapes (and it would be a far bigger target than patchable short life back doors), imagine a rogue nation or terrorist group bricking every device in a country, or corrupting data or sharing private information or a single country.
Haven't the idiots who propose this ever seen Blake's 7? (Or many similar programs).
They are basically proposing making Orac (i.e able to control any computer) technically possible.
(Even Independence Day should show the folly of a global back door.)
When said OS is used with systems that cannot be upgraded, yes.
(because it would make expensive hardware unusable.)
But also the people who made and OKed the decision to purchase such unsuitable systems should be held to account.
Why would anyone buy a jack of all trades system, with a life of a decade or so to run expensive equipment meant to last thirty years with a specific requirement?
I think it will get far easier.
The EU will have no incentive to prevent people leaving its borders.
We will be financially pressed, and unlikely to spend enough to do the job properly. We already don't and then put the blame on the EU rules.
I sort of agree. The EU will be concerned about goods traveling across the border, while Britain will be worried about people crossing. (It's the whole point of brexit, apparently).
Britain provides mainly services, for which physical borders are not really relevant. (But being outside the legal framework that allows us to provide then, will be).
Our currency is reduced in value, meaning those exports are cheaper, meaning the EU will be even keener to insist on decent border control to ensure tariffs are paid.
All this fuss, just to save child benefit going abroad to a few polish kids, (and surely it would have been easier just to require the kids benefiting to be within the UK?)
I'm not sure I agree with that being a valid example of the mindless ignorance you refer to.
Britain (when not used as an abbreviation for Great Britain) means England and Wales.
British (when used as a nationality) refers to UK nationals.
British is likely to refer to those ruled over by Westminster, until such time as England stands alone.
Until such time as the Scots leave, they are British.
Scotland is part of Great Britain. (You'll be pleased that it is the difference between Britain and Great Britain)
However the poster used an abbreviation, Brits, not British. The context makes it clear he was not referring to the British nationality, but the people of England and Wales.
If we do go ahead with a hard brexit I really hope you get the chance not to go down with us, and I think Mrs May is being totally unfair expecting you to suffer the consequences of our decision, BEFORE you get a chance to leave.
Though had indyref gone the other way, I think we would have gotten the wake-up call we needed, and would not now be facing a decades long lesson in humility.
There is also the fact that Norway is part of the single market, this means that the only goods they are interested in would be those originating from outside the EEA, that are allowed into Norway by its own customs arrangements, and anything not covered by the single market (e.g agricultural products).
Outside the EEA and customs union then everything would need to be controlled, including people who are not citizens of the British Isles.
What is the point of (at the very least) decimating our economy and world influence, to 'control our borders' if the only people we currently don't 'control' can simply walk across the border?
NI could remain within the customs union, and not block entry of EU citizens, and move the issue to the borders of Great Britain, but of course, that would be a special arrangement, and Scotland would be totally justified in demanding its own arrangement too.
And of course what happens when Eire decides to join Schengen? The reason they didn't already was because it would mess up the border.
Simply leaving the EU would reduce the the EU influence on us (and ours on it) to that which is needed by EEA membership. (It would probably reduce the international importance of the English language too.) It would not cause massive social or economic issues. This is what people were actually asked to vote on.
However also leaving the EEA and the customs union, will be a disaster, economically and socially. With a margin of 2% it is not safe to infer that hard brexit is the 'will of the people' (i.e less that 1 in 26 leave voters wanted the wide pushed Norway model).
At least after the election, the Tories will have a valid mandate for a hard brexit. (Assuming Labour keeps to its have your cake and eat it Brexit model, and also continues to fight the other opposition parties as well as the Tories.)
I saw someone sitting in a car at a campsite watching one when I was a kid.
£500 for an Android phone? (Presumably with a single sim slot)
I would have bought a passport, had it been dual sim, (possibly even a single sim one had the OS not been dropped).
And given how many features never made it over to BB 10 from BB 6 (etc), (each update got better though, until they pulled the plug), the playbook being dropped before it got BB10, and then the plugs being pulled on BB10 I would be very dubious about another BB, unless the price was rock bottom.
If I am forced to choose between iOS and Android, then I will stick to cheap dual sim phones, because then when something annoys me it is only tens of pounds, not hundreds.
(I'd quite happily get an old qwerty symbian phone if telegram supported it.)
(For example removing pictures of breast feeding mothers)
... how can they not be regarded as publishers?
They could release only OS X server for 3rd party hardware.
They could give it a big price tag, and a caveat that it was used either in supported VMs or certified hardware, if you want support.
That wouldn't hit their main market, and price would not be a problem for the target market.
The only concession they should give is to provide a separate unencrypted channel, to send messages if the main secure channel is blocked, but making it completely clear that the channel in use is insecure.
Damn, beat me to it.
I don't see that.
Once the British influence is gone (basically America by proxy, w.r.t Russia) it is advantageous to have a reasonably powerful EU as an ally.
He would be more worried about a broken EU and an Islamic State resurgence.
I believe that is a negotiating ploy, however I do believe that the provision of services will not be separated from freedom of movement.
Goods can be dealt with by the customs union, that would suit the EU, we are a service economy. It would also make the Irish Border our problem only. (Control of EEA citizens crossing).
Bank Passporting, I'm sure they would sell us that because it would avoid a huge budget hole. Though I guess the politically acceptable figures will not match for both sides, so will probably be a non-starter.
If they give us services without freedom of movement and a Norway style contribution, it would undermine the whole EU.
The loss of the ability to sell services (or more likely the loss of the actual companies) will be what cripples us.
I disagree. It pre-dates the EU. It is only for people, not goods and services. EU countries are responsible for their own immigration policies for non EEA citizens.
What has to end in the event of a hard brexit is the open border. It will have to be similar to travelling to and from the Schengen Zone is at present.
This would seem to be much the same as the control system at the height of the troubles.
Not a good situation.
What planet are you on?
They don't want to throw us out.
We are going to leave.
They don't want us to go.
They will offer half measures, but only ones that are consistent with what other EFTA and Customs Union members have.
They will offer us continuing membership of the customs union, (Turkey style)
They will offer us continuing EEA membership (or something equivalent) based on Norway's arrangement.
The may even offer us bank passporting for a figure based on the difference between Norway and Switzerland's contributions.
But unless our government actively seeks these out at the outset, then businesses will assume a hard brexit and start relocating all the non-UK EEA work to an area that will remain in it. (In fact some already have.)
Given our economy has spent the last 30 - 40 years becoming a service industry for the single market, this will hurt. Badly. (In effect we are self inflicting a trade embargo, because outside the single market, many services are impossible. The trade embargo with Russia hit it far harder than they are prepared to admit. Russia is far bigger than us. And they would not have businesses leaving to keep their customers, so they still retained the resources).
All the EU has to do is make reasonable offers and keep rejecting our unreasonable demands, and we are stuffed good and proper.
The only hope is that all this hard brexit nonsense is just a ploy to appease the UKIP voters and will be dropped once A50 is started.
Why do you think the Common Travel Area that includes Ireland and the UK will have to end? It already includes territories that are not in the EU.
Who was talking about it ending? And the problem is about the borders no who is allowed to cross them.
Currently the CTA is effectively like the Schengen zone. Because all the area within in it are members of the customs union and they share area entry policies.
If the UK leaves the Customs union and the single market, then the border will have to become a customs border. Otherwise it is a back door in and out of the single market. (No control of people, but control of what they bring with them, back to how it was in the time of the troubles, basically)
If the UK ends freedom of movement. It will have to become a border controlling people. Because EU nationals will require a visa to enter the UK, (or at the very least to be recorded).
If it isn't then the whole concept of 'controlling our borders' becomes complete nonsense, because that is the only border we don't control.
In which case why are we decimating our economy by leaving the single market?
Being concerned doesn't stop it being ill-considered. (e.g. People who don't vaccinate their children don't actually want them to come to harm, it is just ill-considered.)
I don't have a problem with that viewpoint. Basically a soft brexit. No disasters, socially or economically.
However the issue I do have is the gullibility believing what we would get is anything like that.
Currently to join you have to be a member of the EU or EFTA.
However, we are already a member of it, and we are bigger than the EFTA. Therefore there is no reason if the EU wanted to, we couldn't be a member, even if EFTA didn't want us dominating it.
The EU would bend over backwards to keep us in the EEA, providing we don't insist on a deal that makes the other deals look bad. (However we will, and we'll end up in the WTO, with half our industry moved out of the country and the other half owned by other countries.)
Er no. Was it written on a big red bus?
How dumb would that be?
There is an EFTA court to deal with the non EU countries.
They really don't have to do that.
They can simply offer similar existing arrangements with other non EU countries (EEA, customs union) and let us reject them, knowing that pretty much anything else will be impossible to negotiate in the time frame. (Look at the Swiss bespoke deal, for time scale).
We will punish ourselves.
I believe we will be offered the option of remaining in the customs union. (Like Turkey).
I also believe we will be offered the option of EEA membership (maybe even standalone).
When we reject EEA membership, I suspect they might look at the arrangements Norway (EEA) and Switzerland (effectively EEA without banking and will a lower cost) have.
By looking at the difference, (Both have freedom of movement, and Norway pays twice as much per head) it could be possible to come up with a value for the banking.
That would give a fee for the banking of somewhere in the region of half net our per head contribution, and no freedom of movement. Of course this would have to become a possibility pretty early on, or the banks would a;ready have left.
But, I reckon we will be leaving with no deal, because of our intransigence, rather than the EU's.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018