Jump to content

Notone

Members
  • Content count

    2,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Notone

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Chess
    Psychology
    World Domination
    Shenanigans

Recent Profile Visitors

3,896 profile views
  1. I felt the need to point that out, since you came up with a pretty non-sensical claim. The only half-way plausible explanation why you think remain should have campaigned on base to join the common currency was if you assumed there was some forced mechanism, which would force the UK to join the Eurozone. Otherwise it's either nonsense, or dishonest. Remain did not campaign on it, as there was no appetite for it, and there was nothing forcing the UK to join common currency. Fear of losing the pound is idelogically quite similar BoZo's claims of Turkey joining the EU in the neaer future, and the UK being unable to do anything about it (likesay vetoing it). Both is varying degree of xenophobic nonsense. The ugly unwashed muslims are coming to Britain, and the UK losing it's good pound sterling thanks to EU. Before you get off to write a rationalisation of why you are making a thoughtful point, no I am not actually interested in your rationalisation attempts. I don't really care about your voting pattern, tbh. But you are constantly making (or repeating) the right wing Tory talking points, be it Hunt or Fox, or whichever Tory europhobe has shared their latest pearls of wisdom. No, but your past posts imply a lack of fundamental knowledge about the EU institutions, the EU single market (you are obviously not alone in that regard, and fortunately unlike the people I have in mind, you don't hold any office in the UK), or economics 101, and why manufacturers in the UK were acting up. So I am really not sure, you actually understand the difference between a Canada like deal and full EU membership. Disclaimer, with regards to the last point, I'd need to read it up myself. We're exchanging quotes now, are we? How about this one. Nothing in all the worlds is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientous stupidity. I am with @Werthead (obviously) on this issue. Smooth is relative term, but I doubt there's any such thing. Unless you mean by smotth giving businesses enough time to get the hell out of Dodge in more or less orderly fashion. Sorry to burst that bubble. And I know I said it on one of the previous pages already, but the EU is not really interested to have the UK sticking around in some legal limbo for all eternity. Most head of states I heard from, have been pretty clear in that regard for years. I really don't know where do you think the political goodwill for that should come from anyway. If it were a matter of 2-3 more years or so to work out some kinks, then I could see it happening. But that's as far as my imagination goes.
  2. It's in the interest of both sides, however a deal would mean the British side have to make an acceptable offer of some sort, thus far it has not. Or vice versa, the EU has to abandon its red lines, which it won't. And like I said above, May can't move enough to meet the EU standards of a satisfying deal (as ERG would shoot it down somewhat instantly). And it's not a negotiation on even terms, the EU has far more leverage than the UK, that much should've become obvious by now.
  3. You know what hard Brexit means? The way you are phrasing it, suggest you really don't. What, like really, what? Let's break this one down in bits. No, usually it's the other way round, Common goverment and common laws should precede a common currency (actually one of the designing flaws of the Euro). And why would remainers propose a non-sensical position. Joining the Euro was not on the cards for the UK for a good while (the UK not being interested), and there are other EU countries not in the Eurozone (just look at Scandinavia). And you are reversing roles here, brexiteers promised all sort of contradictory things to different people. Was it Hannan or Raab who said nobody intends to leave the Single Market, while cutting immigration. Well, or the Brexit dividend to be spend on a bus advert. I give you one thing, it should've been clear that it was either vote for status quo or leave the single market and customs union (and red tape being workers rights, and enviromental standards. But that's something Brexiteers always denied. Like I said, promising different things to different people, that often times contradicted each other. Whether the British public would've been on-board with leaving the EU, if the consequences of a hard Brexit were spelt out to them, and leaver's would've been honest (project reality and not project fear), that is a different question. Loss of single market access, disruption of the J-I-T supply chain, thus loss of manufacturing jobs depending on it.
  4. Notone

    Football: Jules Rimet Still Gleaming

    Well, the goalkeeper market is most certainly in motion now. Courtois to Real (let's assume it'll happen). And Alisson to Liverpool. Now then, Chelski and Roma need a new goalkeeper. Let's see what happens. Maybe Navas will end up either in Rome or London, Cech could fill in at either club for a year (I don't hink Arsenal will demand a high fee (if any at all)). I wonder what will happen to Karius, I think he might be a short term option for Leverkusen as their new goalkeeper Hradecky picked up an injury and will be out for a while. Cillessen might be an option, but I think he is most certainly a step down from Courtois or Alisson. Talking about him. Well, that he would be in the position of a benchwarmer was obvious from the moment he signed. That's also why I didn't understand this move. Dutch #1 is leaving a starter position at Ajax to sit on the Barca bench. I think @mormont argued that the move made sense as in competing over the starting duty back then.
  5. Yep, that vote was closer than I would've expected. However what I find curious was the reasoning of one of the Labour leaver (I think it was Mann) why he voted against the single market amendment. I think he said something along the lines, that the single market amendment would reduce the chances that reach a [good] deal, which would keep the supply chains intact and save manufacturing jobs around the country. Did I say curious, I meant non-sensical. Well, you can blame the goverment, and May and Davis in particular for not putting together a Brexit position for 18 months or so. May didn't want to face down the JRM loons, and Davis was happily incompetent and or satisifed with letting the clock run down without putting any work into Brexit. Either way, May was happy to kick the inevitable confrontation between remainers and leavers within her party into the long grass. Now she just ran out of grass. Really? That expectation is based on what exactly? I hope it's not some misguided sense of British exceptionalism, that will lead the EU to bend over backwards to give the UK what it wants, just because... Anyway, the Whitepaper (the first real Brexit position of the British Goverment) was already dead on arrival as it was, JRM and his ERG managed to add amendments to it, that effectivley put it out of its misery. After that show of strength by the Moggles, how do you think May will be able to put together a palatable deal for the EU? Whether Labour would shoot down a deal is a rather academic question at this point Ithink. And the UK still hasn't come up with a solution with regards to the Irish border (at least none that isn't based on magical thinking (technical solutions that don't exist, or JRM's Eixit fantsasy)), and the agreed backstop is apparently still unacceptable for any PM. Anyway, as I can see where this will be going, let me (or rather FT) shoot down the blame game (it's EU's fault if there's a border on the Irish Island) before it starts. Here was a not working link in the original post, So just a short summary then. What happened if the UK just kept the border open? Under WTO rules this will result effectively mean no customs or tariffs on anything from anywhere. WTO rules have a preferred state approach, if you waive customs and tariffs on goods from one WTO member, you have to waive it on all. So if you let goods flow freely between the Republic and the North, you create a free entry point to the British marketss for sub-standard goods (likesay Chinese electronics and machines, or US agriculture goods), and you also strip British farmer's of any protection whatsoever and they have to compete in a "perfect" market with Australian sheep meat, or US or Brazilian beef. The EU would be in the same position, so it's inconceivable that they will leave the door open. Some EU rules of origins are not gonna cut it, as that would open the door to smuggling and forgery (remember one of the previous threads, when we talked about the EU can't allow the UK to pimp out single market access through the backdoor?). So according to WTO rules, there'll have to be a border and customs check (unless there's a bespoke FTA in place), it's a mere legal fact of life. On more pleasent news, is Labour really finally geetting rid of that kipper Hoey?
  6. That was one of the craziest ideas May's come up with (and was as close a reason for outright disissal as you can get) anyway. Apart from the sheer amount of bureaucracy needed to make it theoretically work, that idea is outright bizarre. Just step back for a moment and think about it, what that suggestion actually entails. It basically says, that a third state (in this case the UK) is enforcing the customs laws of the EU and collecting the customs payment on the EUs behalf - and vice versa. Taking back control works both ways afterall. JRM amendment would effectively force the EU to join the bureaucracy bonanza and give away control over british custom procedures. Ok, practically it would probably cut down British expenses for Brexit a bit. You really have to appreciate the sheer crazyness of that proposal for a moment. Like I said, it's gonna end up as hard Brexit anyway, so they might as well bugger off to their holliday in France now, and let that car crash happen later on. On a practical side, goverment staffers will be busy trying to negotiate a deal anyway, which is an administrative/goverment function, so for the negotiation itself you don't need parliament - and the further the MPs are away, the less likely they are to give strong and stable statements to the telegraph or sun. I really don't think there's enough to time left for this, unless you have a deal hammered out, and it's either accept deal, rescind article 50 or hard Brexit/WTO for a referendum. Given that both May and Corbyn have both rejected a new referendum, I'd put that down as a remainer's pipedream. I don't see this happening either. Tory rebels have thus far always backed down at the prospect of PM Corbyn. And Corbyn is opportunistic on that issue, he waits for the Tories to implode to rule over charred bones and ashes, as this is the will of the people. With regards to the Tory rebels I have to make an exception for Soubry, who has thus far shown no sign whatsoever that she is willing to play along in this Tory Brexit psycho drama.
  7. A somewhat longer read. Tony Blur and his take on May's proposals and Brexit in general. For most parts I agree with him. My nitpick is, that he is being too kind to Labour and their nonsensical position. And (at least imo) it contains nothing particularly new, at least for the interested observer. Some key bits. It mimics to some degree what I said, that the Singapore on Thames model is at least a logical coherent position (unlike Labour's a custom's union model, or May's customs partnership). Although, I suspect dystopian and cruel is probably a pretty accurate describtion for this model as far as most working class Britons concerned - that's at least my beef with his position.
  8. I think you have to see this in connection with the so called "Doomsday scenarios" The implication would be, that the British goverment besides all its bluster knows very well, that a no deal Brexit would not be particularly pleasent. A cynical observer might raise the question, whether that isn't weakening the goverment's neogtiating position. But, I guess, I'll leave it at that. Well, and apparently May has carved in to pressure from the Brexiters, and agreed to amendments that would make the deal even less palatable for the EU. Like I said, on route to a hard Brexit.
  9. Notone

    Football: Jules Rimet Still Gleaming

    Basically yes, however I think that would point more to Joe Gomez leaving (whether on loan or a permanent deal is the question). Or Klopp wants to change systems with three centrebacks. Which seems to be en vogue atm. If you play with a back four, you don't really need five centrebacks, and that would effectively be Gomez role then.
  10. Yep, while the nucleus of the French winning team will stay on, which is kinda my original point with regards to the bright future. Yes, they ended on the easier side of the tree (and avoided the winners' curse ), however what this team lacked in their game against Croatia was mainly experience. They fell into passivity in the second half, and conceded a goal that was by no means impossible to defend against. With a bit more experience, I think they could've avoided the passivity trap and would've continued to play or at least played out one or two counter attacks. While it played a part, I think it's a bit too lazy and simple to reduce it to Neuer's call up, or Özil's (Gündogan's) embarassing photo op with Turkish autocrat president Erdogan, or their hated lodging in Watutinki, all of that may have a played a role. But unless you assume they had a time machine and travelled back in time 9 months or so, it all falls short. As the series of shitty game had been going on for a while longer. It started after they clinched the qualification, after the Spain or Brazil friendly Kroos called out his teammates in public ("it's now obvious, that we are not as good as people think, or even some of us pretend to be.") So I'd argue that rot goes a bit deeper than that. Griezman said after they won the title, "you are nothing without the collective/group". That's most certainly true, the Germany of 2014 made a promise to each other, everything for the team, no ego, no distraction from their goal (as none of them wanted to end their international careers with the stain of not having won anything on that level [golden generation, not silver (or tin) generation]). I think that difference played a bigger role than picking Neuer.
  11. Well, Neuer was the least of the problems in Germany's attempt to defend the title. Yep, they didn't win the title. Now it'll take some balls to axe some of the players that won the cup (Mark Twain's right about the sacred cows making the best hamburgers, but few dare to take that to a test). Anyway, France's development has some similarities to the German team's. Very good talented team that didn't win the World Cup on their first proper run (Germany failed in 2010 and so did France in 2014), both had some disappointments on their way there (Germany's semi-final exit against Italy at the Euros in 2012 and France's heartbreak in their final at home 2016 against Portugal). Let's see if the players you mentioned can break (back) into the team. Eventhough it's pretty hypothetical, but Iam not sure they could do much, if they were in roughly the same squad in four years time, with a Pogba in solo-mode (as in, I've already won that thing and don't need to prove anything anymore, and not track back as decisively), just with some sort of saturation and complacency. Again, for the last 20 years almost any reigning champion has struggled rather badly when it came down to defending the title. Brazil in 1998 was pretty much the last champion that managed to play a good tournament.
  12. Wasn't that what people said about Germany four years ago? Well, replace the names Giroud and Lloris with Lahm, Schweinsteiger and Klose, but you know what I mean. Remember the last team to succesfully win back-to-back world cups was Brazil in 1962. I think England might actually win it in four years time. This year it was a bit too early for them.
  13. To some degree it resembles the Ukraine+, and also Switzerland model, yes. However part of the treaties between the EU and Switzerland also contains a specific one that deals with the freedom of movement for people (something the white paper is not really offering). And here comes the kicker, those treaties also have a so called "guillotine clause", if the Suisse withdraw from one (likesay freedom of movement), then all other treaties become void as result. That was established to prevent cherry picking. Also, Switzerland (like Norway) contributes to the EU budget, that's another UK red line falling. And there's also a fundamental political problem. At the end of 2012 (?) the EU has pretty much said, they would no longer negotiate Suisse like deals. The reason was that those contracts/treaties are too static, and do not take changes/evolvement of the EU law into account, which is somewhat of a nuisance. Which brings back the role of the ECJ, I don't think May's White Paper is good enough in that respect.
  14. Just wait till she has to table a realistic offer`, or commit to a hard Brexit. This offer was for most parts still cherry picking (not to mention that it also contained the bonkers element of May's custom partnership idea with the UK collecting tariffs on the EU's behalf). The reality of the matter is, there won't be a better deal than the UK currently enjoys as member (with all its special perks on top). On top of that, it was also a half-way proposal to pacify both remainers and leavers alike. Which in turn satisfied noone. And yes, the clock keeps on ticking, and I don't think May will be able to move much more towards the EU for a deal. Who would've thought that spending so much time on strong (wo-)man poses at home would result in running the clock down?
  15. Notone

    Player of the tournament so far

    Hazard for me. But Modric or Mbappe are probably in a better position, depending on who wins the final. Attention lame joke coming. But it doesn't matter as Harry Kane will claim it.
×