Mother of cyclist killed in Notting Hill urges council to reveal identity of woman who "masqueraded" as aunt at cycleaway meeting

jollygoodvelo wrote:

How in hell did this turn into a Brexit debate?  I come here to escape that shit.  Plenty of other places on the internet to debate it, please choose one and go there.

In the meantime: I'm glad that the person has been identified, sadly I'm struggling to think of anything they could reasonably be charged with.  "Intent to pervert the course of justice" would only apply to a legal inquest I think, not merely a consultation process.

I come into Brexit debates to escape helmet debates.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

jollygoodvelo wrote:

How in hell did this turn into a Brexit debate?  I come here to escape that shit.  Plenty of other places on the internet to debate it, please choose one and go there.

In the meantime: I'm glad that the person has been identified, sadly I'm struggling to think of anything they could reasonably be charged with.  "Intent to pervert the course of justice" would only apply to a legal inquest I think, not merely a consultation process.

I come into Brexit debates to escape helmet debates.

Confusingly, Boris *does* wear a helmet ...

jollygoodvelo wrote:

How in hell did this turn into a Brexit debate?

Because we were talking about lying, and about pretending to be something you're not.  So of course the subject of Brexit came up  

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only for the reason that the campaign thought it significant enough to paint in big letters on the side of a bus. In reality, the £250/£350 million figure is dwarfed by the potential economic impact of leaving (generally thought to be detrimental).

My big issue is with the way the referendum was a binary choice between remain or leave. Although "remain" is a single choice (in context of the referendum), "leave" encompasses many different ideas and approaches. The simplest split would be "no deal leave" and "with a deal leave", but there's also the issue of whether to stay in the customs union or not. As a result of the "fuzzy" leave option which meant different things to different people, we've now got the issue of politicians trying to implement something that no-one can agree on and not coming to any consensus.

It's like agreeing to paint a room a different colour ("remain" would be to leave it as it is) and then spending years arguing about what colour to paint it. It's a complete shit-show and we all know it.

So what did Remain actually mean?

1. Remain - Status quo?
2. Remain - In Eurozone but out of Schengen?
3. Remain - In Schengen but out of Eurozone?
4. Remain - In Eurozone and in Schengen?

As you can see, Remain was not a single choice either.

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only for the reason that the campaign thought it significant enough to paint in big letters on the side of a bus. In reality, the £250/£350 million figure is dwarfed by the potential economic impact of leaving (generally thought to be detrimental).

My big issue is with the way the referendum was a binary choice between remain or leave. Although "remain" is a single choice (in context of the referendum), "leave" encompasses many different ideas and approaches. The simplest split would be "no deal leave" and "with a deal leave", but there's also the issue of whether to stay in the customs union or not. As a result of the "fuzzy" leave option which meant different things to different people, we've now got the issue of politicians trying to implement something that no-one can agree on and not coming to any consensus.

It's like agreeing to paint a room a different colour ("remain" would be to leave it as it is) and then spending years arguing about what colour to paint it. It's a complete shit-show and we all know it.

So what did Remain actually mean?

1. Remain - Status quo?
2. Remain - In Eurozone but out of Schengen?
3. Remain - In Schengen but out of Eurozone?
4. Remain - In Eurozone and in Schengen?

As you can see, Remain was not a single choice either.

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

So if we had voted to remain our relationship with the EU would have remained exactly as it was on June 23rd for ever more?

Is that what happened last time we voted to remain?

Remain contained just as many disparate views as Leave.

Pretending that it was a coherent voting block is another post referendum myth.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

So if we had voted to remain our relationship with the EU would have remained exactly as it was on June 23rd for ever more? Is that what happened last time we voted to remain? Remain contained just as many disparate views as Leave. Pretending that it was a coherent voting block is another post referendum myth.

You'd expect the current relationship to remain as it is until a better idea comes along. I don't get why a referendum should be applicable for all future times - people change and opinions change and evolve over time. A referendum is used to judge current attitudes.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You'd expect the current relationship to remain as it is until a better idea comes along. I don't get why a referendum should be applicable for all future times - people change and opinions change and evolve over time. A referendum is used to judge current attitudes.

So there's no difference between Leave and Remain in that regard.

Leave:
UK is outside the EU, future relationship with EU to be decided.

Remain:
UK is in the EU, future relationship with EU to be decided.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You'd expect the current relationship to remain as it is until a better idea comes along. I don't get why a referendum should be applicable for all future times - people change and opinions change and evolve over time. A referendum is used to judge current attitudes.

So there's no difference between Leave and Remain in that regard. Leave: UK is outside the EU, future relationship with EU to be decided. Remain: UK is in the EU, future relationship with EU to be decided.

That analysis would be correct for a no-deal brexit. I'm yet to be convinced that a no-deal is what 52% voted for.

hawkinspeter wrote:

That analysis would be correct for a no-deal brexit. I'm yet to be convinced that a no-deal is what 52% voted for.

Both 'Deal' and 'No Deal' only apply for the first few years after leaving the EU.

Both options would require a long term FTA to be agreed with the EU.

No Deal would lead to more disruption in the short term but in the long term there'd be no difference.

Both Leave and Remain contained uncertainty about the future relationship with the EU but at least with Leave the electorate would have more control in future.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That analysis would be correct for a no-deal brexit. I'm yet to be convinced that a no-deal is what 52% voted for.

Both 'Deal' and 'No Deal' only apply for the first few years after leaving the EU. Both options would require a long term FTA to be agreed with the EU. No Deal would lead to more disruption in the short term but in the long term there'd be no difference. Both Leave and Remain contained uncertainty about the future relationship with the EU but at least with Leave the electorate would have more control in future.

I don't think we're on the same page as to what 'no-deal' means. I interpret it as not having an agreement with the EU and thus trading with them based on 'WTO' rules. As to the future disruption that each option would cause, I'll bow to your crystal ball skills as there are huge disagreements and uncertainties amongst financial experts (of which I am most certainly not a member).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think we're on the same page as to what 'no-deal' means. I interpret it as not having an agreement with the EU and thus trading with them based on 'WTO' rules. As to the future disruption that each option would cause, I'll bow to your crystal ball skills as there are huge disagreements and uncertainties amongst financial experts (of which I am most certainly not a member).

The 'deal' is just the withdrawal agreement, it is designed as a transition to a formal FTA which is to be negotiated over the next few years.

'No deal' gives no transition period, so trade on WTO terms until formal FTA negotiated.

The 'deal' option (as it currently stands) also prevents us implementing FTA's with other countries until we finish negotiations with the EU.

hawkinspeter wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only ...

So what did Remain actually mean?

1. Remain - Status quo?
2. Remain - In Eurozone but out of Schengen?
3. Remain - In Schengen but out of Eurozone?
4. Remain - In Eurozone and in Schengen?

As you can see, Remain was not a single choice either.

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

So why does Leave not just mean Leave? You do understand what the clause "working towards ever closer union" entails don't you?

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only ...

So what did Remain actually mean?

1. Remain - Status quo?
2. Remain - In Eurozone but out of Schengen?
3. Remain - In Schengen but out of Eurozone?
4. Remain - In Eurozone and in Schengen?

As you can see, Remain was not a single choice either.

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

So why does Leave not just mean Leave? You do understand what the clause "working towards ever closer union" entails don't you?

There's a clear dichotomy between leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal.

What context is the "working towards ever closer union" mentioned in? It sounds a bit vague to me.

hawkinspeter wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only ...

So what did Remain actually mean?

1. Remain - Status quo?
2. Remain - In Eurozone but out of Schengen?
3. Remain - In Schengen but out of Eurozone?
4. Remain - In Eurozone and in Schengen?

As you can see, Remain was not a single choice either.

Huh? Remain would obviously be option 1 - why would remaining involve other changes? That just makes no sense at all.

So why does Leave not just mean Leave? You do understand what the clause "working towards ever closer union" entails don't you?

There's a clear dichotomy between leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal.

What context is the "working towards ever closer union" mentioned in? It sounds a bit vague to me.

Treaty of Rome 1957, Solemn Declaration on European Union 1983, Single European Act 1986, Maastricht Treaty 1992, Treaty of Amsterdam 1997, Treaty of Nice 2001, and Lisbon Treaty 2009. In addition numerous references in the EU Courts of Justice (57 citations).

It is a fundamental aim of the EU enshrined in its treaties and case law.

Yes it is vague but it is there. The fact that it is so vague is what makes it dangerous, it can be interepretated any way a politician wants.

If the result of 2016 had been in favour of Remain what is there to stop a future PM from taking us into the Eurozone and Schengen without consultation on the grounds that the Remain result had given him a clear mandate from the people?

levermonkey wrote:

If the result of 2016 had been in favour of Remain what is there to stop a future PM from taking us into the Eurozone and Schengen without consultation on the grounds that the Remain result had given him a clear mandate from the people?

That's weak.  What is there to stop a future PM from doing all sorts of bad things?  Maybe they'll try and invade China? (I bet Blair would have worked his way up to that if he hadn't come unstuck on Iraq - his glory-seeking wars kept gettting bigger and bigger).

  There's not the slightest chance that any future PM is going to want to take us into the Eurozone, everyone can see it hasn't worked out very well and that all the reasons for not going into it in the first place have been born out.  Same is almost true of Schengen (which was always a different proposition for the British Isles as for countries sharing continental land borders).

Staying in the EU would not have been the end of all struggles, on the contrary, there'd have been loads of massive fights to come, I'm sure, but it was still the 'status quo' option in the context of the referendum.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The bus is significant if only for the reason that the campaign thought it significant enough to paint in big letters on the side of a bus. In reality, the £250/£350 million figure is dwarfed by the potential economic impact of leaving (generally thought to be detrimental).

My big issue is with the way the referendum was a binary choice between remain or leave. Although "remain" is a single choice (in context of the referendum), "leave" encompasses many different ideas and approaches. The simplest split would be "no deal leave" and "with a deal leave", but there's also the issue of whether to stay in the customs union or not. As a result of the "fuzzy" leave option which meant different things to different people, we've now got the issue of politicians trying to implement something that no-one can agree on and not coming to any consensus.

It's like agreeing to paint a room a different colour ("remain" would be to leave it as it is) and then spending years arguing about what colour to paint it. It's a complete shit-show and we all know it.

Remain isn't and never should have been a single choice in the same way as leave wasn't/isn't. Or are you saying that voting remain means staying with the staus quo and the mess that both Labour and Cons under that POS Cameron left us in with regards to the EU? So you were happy for us to continue in the same vein, increasing the trade deficit even further, continuing on the path of mass migration with next to no controls. Much of that is forced by the UN dictats and collusion with Western European governments to get people from the middle East/muslim countries to migrate/populate Western Europe, hence why 'we' bomb the crap and strangle the poor bastards in the first place!

And on from that because the EU/UN and individual govs have known for years that this has massive (negative) repercussions (as revealed publicly in the news today by Vladimir Putin of all people) but they can use it for ever increasing privacy infringing laws and greater control of the 'plebs' because of the threats posed.

With regard to much of everything else Putin said he's wrong but with regard to the liberal aspect of what is essentially forced migration of vastly differing cultures he's correct. The sick thing is, it's a creation by 'western' governments and the UN who are the puppets of the global money people who want to control uprisings/revolution against their greed, this is how it works, this is why the EU is not good for any of us as they are part of the bigger picture/problem, maybe you don't know about the money that goes from our taxes via the EU bank (to make more profit for them) that helps fund national dictators around the world?

You state that the money is insignificant with respect to the global negative impact, you're right on that count, but staying within the EU and the single choice of going with no change will most certainly continue in our downward spiral, widening trade deficit with the EU and all the other issues that have fallen on our doorstep because of being a member state of this unregulated regime.

Will it be a right shit storm, of course it will, people thinking this was all going to get resolved in the matter of a couple of years must be in dreamland, particularly when we know the dictators like Tusk and his bunch of cronies would never give an inch, however long term we are far, far better off out of the EU. The pony regarding how much it'll cost each family post exit is based on 'projections' by people who are very much more wrong than right and will follow the 'trend' of predicting as opposed to standing out and being right. We know this because one of the biggest and most respected names in the industry told us so 40 years ago - Friedrich Hayek.

Prakesh Loungani of the IMF told us in 2017 that economic forcasters failed to predict 148 out of 150 of the last recessions, he states that there's no gain for forcasters to stand out and be correct. This is why a bunch of younger kids not in the same situation so were able to rectify mistakes, correct biases so they could be far more accurate in their projections as part of a 4 year competition, so they were doing stuff that the professionals weren't and beat government intelligence agencies who had classified financial/economic info that they did not have.  

Wake up for fucks sakes!

Rich_cb wrote:

I fail to understand the obsession with what was written on a bus. If £250 million would have been an accurate figure then does anyone reasonably think that the difference between the two figures is what swung the referendum. £250 million is a vast sum of money, as is £350 million. The political impact of the advert would have been the same regardless. There were lies and exaggerations on both sides, as there are in all elections. The idea that the referendum result was brought about by malign means unusual to the democratic process in this country is a myth.

a) It's not just the inaccuracy of the figure, it's the implication that we'd then just have our budget contribution knocking around as spare money instead of needing to fund all of the new bureaucracy needed to manage our own agricultural, fisheries, customs, whatever policies.

b) £250m is not a "vast" sum of money in national budgetary terms. 0.6% of the UK's public spend = a bargain.

c) "There were lies and exaggerations on both sides" makes the result less legitimate, not more. 

d) Yay, road bikes.

MonkeyPuzzle wrote:

a) It's not just the inaccuracy of the figure, it's the implication that we'd then just have our budget contribution knocking around as spare money instead of needing to fund all of the new bureaucracy needed to manage our own agricultural, fisheries, customs, whatever policies.

b) £250m is not a "vast" sum of money in national budgetary terms. 0.6% of the UK's public spend = a bargain.

c) "There were lies and exaggerations on both sides" makes the result less legitimate, not more. 

d) Yay, road bikes.

To the average person £250/350 million is a vast sum. In governmental terms it's roughly equivalent to the entire budgets of some departments.

It's incredibly unlikely that additional bureaucracy would swallow up the entirety of our net contribution or even a significant part.

All elections have lies and exaggerations, our democracy would be destroyed if we refused to accept the legitimacy of any election not based on 100% honesty and accuracy.

Yay bikes.

MonkeyPuzzle wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I fail to understand the obsession with what was written on a bus. If £250 million would have been an accurate figure then does anyone reasonably think that the difference between the two figures is what swung the referendum. £250 million is a vast sum of money, as is £350 million. The political impact of the advert would have been the same regardless. There were lies and exaggerations on both sides, as there are in all elections. The idea that the referendum result was brought about by malign means unusual to the democratic process in this country is a myth.

a) It's not just the inaccuracy of the figure, it's the implication that we'd then just have our budget contribution knocking around as spare money instead of needing to fund all of the new bureaucracy needed to manage our own agricultural, fisheries, customs, whatever policies.

b) £250m is not a "vast" sum of money in national budgetary terms. 0.6% of the UK's public spend = a bargain.

c) "There were lies and exaggerations on both sides" makes the result less legitimate, not more. 

d) Yay, road bikes.

(a) That was the implication, but there's nothing unusually scandalous about that - political campaigns always involve one-sided takes on things that involve unstated implications.  It was the job of the remain campaign to make that point about what we get for it in response.

(b)  Dunno, it's a matter of subjective judgement.

Personally I always found the one-sided nature of the transaction (the fact that for most of the EEC/EU's existence the French, arguably wealthier than we are, were net recipients, while only the UK, Germany and the Netherlands had to pay in) to be a bit of an annoyance.  But I do not believe it's sufficient to justify all the agony and trouble of leaving.

   There has never been much democratic or idealistic about the EU, it's always been cats fighting in a sack.  But I think that's, on balance, better than the alternative - fighting outside the sack.

I still find the rosy-glassed take of some pro-EU people to be very irritating.  It's probably because I'm a bit old that I am less than 100% enthusiastic about the EU, attitudes seem very strongly related to age, and whether you can remember going in in the first place or not.  If I were older still, maybe I'd be a Brexiter.

(c) I think the vote was insufficiently well-defined to be convincing, especially with such a close outcome.  It's all very well leavers to insist they 'knew what they were voting for', and to _now_ say they always wanter a 'hard brexit' but that's irrelevant - what is relevant is they didn't make it clear to everyone else at the time what they were voting for.  The referendum was just a terrible idea, badly-executed.

I think this is just an insoluble mess and the outcome is going to be bad whatever we do now.

(edited)