Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It was another lie pal, 20k this year already, 28k all last year according to the BeeB

I will tell that to border control in France as they stamp my passport with a date.
You are European not French.
 
It turns out that the average Chinese person emits about half what we do in the uk, and chinas per capita emission hasn’t substantially changed since 2013.

Is per capita the right metric?

I emit only a fraction of a jet setter or even Prince Harry. China is a controlled country where the state dictates behaviour, so output per country seems more appropriate.

Anyway, the UK emits 1% of less than 5% of CO2 - nature takes care of the rest. Tha world is greening and the Great Barrier reef is growing back. Polar Bears are more populous than ever.
 
Yes, but the natural stuff, although huge, has been in balance for ages until recently. It’s emitted and absorbed. The extra 5% makes all the difference. It’s not linear in it’s effects. The extra leads to more natural emissions eg as the permafrosts melt and methane is released.
 
China is the manufacturing factory of the world for the world - of course its CO2 emissions are high. Western countries have off-shored their CO2 emissions to China. Attempting to paint China as such a culprit to justify apathy elsewhere is first order mendacity.
 
Western countries have off-shored their CO2 emissions to China.
Exactly. The greatest "smoke and mirrors" show of the late 20th / early 21st century.
 
China is the manufacturing factory of the world for the world - of course its CO2 emissions are high. Western countries have off-shored their CO2 emissions to China. Attempting to paint China as such a culprit to justify apathy elsewhere is first order mendacity.
Your point about offshoring is correct, but Chinas CO2 emissions on a per capita basis are not high - ours are higher and Chinas are not actually rising, so I guess they are doing a reasonable job on that rather narrow basis. God knows how though, as they are still opening coal fired power stations like they are going out of fashion (ironic).
Note I'm not advocating anything particularly - just looking at the data. Whichever way you look at, its a global issue and it needs to come down, whatever. Is there the will to make it come down globally? 🤷‍♂️
 
Propagated anti EU sentiment in his mendacious journalism.
Campaigned for Brexit after deciding it was in his interests.
Stood back then ensured May failed.
Presented himself as the saviour of Brexit.
'Enabled' an incomplete Brexit.
Ousted when his mendacious self-serving autocratic nature became unpalatable to even his own supporters.

To all who supported and empowered Johnson through the above - what is your judgement actually worth?
Seriously? You think Brexit was created by one journalist?
That May collapsed because Boris "stood back?"
Boris' fault is that he isn't an autocrat. Never was. His weakness, both as London Mayor and as PM is that he has let others get on with it.

This cult of the personality is very tiring.

Government is about voters, politicians and civil servants. The failure of EU membership is firmly in the hands of voters, civil servants and politicians over five decades. We could have been a leader in Europe. We could have forced through EU reform, and we could have challenged the German & French domination of the EU agenda and bureaucracy. We didn't: because that's not what voters, civil servants and politicians were interested in. To this day our outlook is Anglo-Saxon, transatlantic and global - we care nothing about Hungary, Greece and Poland.

It's fundamentally nothing to do with a witty blonde journalist.
 
Seriously? You think Brexit was created by one journalist?
Nope. He was only one part. The red top tabloids were as much a part of 'straightness of bananas' etc, etc as him. And I said 'propagated' not 'created'. It's creation was already seeded in the Tory party.
That May collapsed because Boris "stood back?"
Stood back from challenging her from the leadership. Then agitated against her with the ERG.
Boris' fault is that he isn't an autocrat. Never was. His weakness, both as London Mayor and as PM is that he has let others get on with it.
His very clear attitude that the rules applied to everyone else but him implies otherwise. Ditto trying to change the rules to protect his chum Patterson.
This cult of the personality is very tiring.
His carefully crafted persona has been key to his success. Tiring or otherwise, it is his and was cultivated by him - from HIGNFY appearances to zip-wire frolics.
Government is about voters, politicians and civil servants. The failure of EU membership is firmly in the hands of voters, civil servants and politicians over five decades. We could have been a leader in Europe. We could have forced through EU reform, and we could have challenged the German & French domination of the EU agenda and bureaucracy.
50 years of apathy then pronounce the project as a failure.
We didn't: because that's not what voters, civil servants and politicians were interested in. To this day our outlook is Anglo-Saxon, transatlantic and global - we care nothing about Hungary, Greece and Poland.
A poll shown to Cameron showed the majority of Britons wanted Britain to lead in Europe. That intention was over-ruled by the 2016 referendum result, but at no point during the campaigning was the positive prospect of Britain being so pivotal in shaping the EU ever raised. Only how bad the EU was to/for us. Disingenuous to say voters, civil servants and politicians weren't interested in leading from the front when they were never confronted with the possibility. 50 years of apathy could have been reversed - or was it too late to counter the laziness with the maturing seeds within the Tory party close to blooming? Fertilised with Farage's manure.
It's fundamentally nothing to do with a witty blonde journalist.
Really? Think you'll find quite a few on this forum revere him for delivering Brexit. Not only here either.

Anyway, it's done (nearly). More pressing issues to attend to than reside in 2016.
 
A poll shown to Cameron showed the majority of Britons wanted Britain to lead in Europe. That intention was over-ruled by the 2016 referendum result, but at no point during the campaigning was the positive prospect of Britain being so pivotal in shaping the EU ever raised.
"Wanting" isn't acting. Make a list in your head of all the people you know who were active in influencing policy in Brussels, who were part of pressure groups to influence EU policy, who developed opportunities across the EU and who emigrated, of their own volition, to work (not retire) in other EU states. (Not just France and Germany).

Count the number of people you know who have actually worked in other languages.

To help you can include me on all counts. But then your list won't be long.

There's no sense in saying "I wanted to be a judge but I didn't have the Latin for judging." We failed to influence the evolution of the EEC for five decades, and left it to the Germans, assisted by the French. We didn't force our way into being leaders of the gang because we're simply not interested.
 
Last edited:
A poll shown to Cameron showed the majority of Britons wanted Britain to lead in Europe. That intention was over-ruled by the 2016 referendum result, but at no point during the campaigning was the positive prospect of Britain being so pivotal in shaping the EU ever raised.
So, if "we" wanted Britain to lead in Europe, why didn't "we" lead in the previous 43 years?

If the majority of Britons wanted Britain to lead in Europe, why didn't the majority of Britons vote to "Remain?" All the major party leaders, including St Jeremy of Corbyn, a lifelong Brussels enthusiast, told their voters that Europe was the future.

If you want an example of how Britain showed that it did NOT want to shape or lead a united Federal Europe, consider the title of the campaign: "Remain." A passive, ineffective, uninspiring label, that says nothing about leading this Federal United States of Europe, brought together through a common language, culture, tax structure, supported by a federal police & militia.


For a demonstration of poll rigging by Cameron, watch this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
"Wanting" isn't acting. Make a list in your head of all the people you know who were active in influencing policy in Brussels, who were part of pressure groups to influence EU policy, who developed opportunities across the EU and who emigrated, of their own volition, to work (not retire) in other EU states. (Not just France and Germany).

Count the number of people you know who have actually worked in other languages.

To help you can include me on all counts. But then your list won't be long.

There's no sense in saying "I wanted to be a judge but I didn't have the Latin for judging." We failed to influence the evolution of the EEC for five decades, and left it to the Germans, assisted by the French. We didn't force our way into being leaders of the gang because we're simply not interested.
So it's true. MEPs were just riding the gravy train, doing nothing for the country they were supposed to be representing. At least the British ones were leaders in that sense.
 
So, if "we" wanted Britain to lead in Europe, why didn't "we" lead in the previous 43 years?
A failure of political representation.
If the majority of Britons wanted Britain to lead in Europe, why didn't the majority of Britons vote to "Remain?" All the major party leaders, including St Jeremy of Corbyn, a lifelong Brussels enthusiast, told their voters that Europe was the future.
As I have said previously, Cameron chose to campaign on 'fear and the economy' as he believed those issues had won him the GE and Scottish independence referendum. A woeful judgement call. Thereafter, the campaign won round the undecided to deliver the result.
If you want an example of how Britain showed that it did NOT want to shape or lead a united Federal Europe, consider the title of the campaign: "Remain." A passive, ineffective, uninspiring label, that says nothing about leading this Federal United States of Europe, brought together through a common language, culture, tax structure, supported by a federal police & militia.
As I have said previously, Cameron chose to campaign on 'fear and the economy' as he believed those issues had won him the GE and Scottish independence referendum. A woeful judgement call. And a woeful campaign.
For a demonstration of poll rigging by Cameron, watch this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
The same could be said of a referendum.... But it's done now. Can't we move on? We were told it would settle the matter 'once and for all'. Or are the 'material facts' now different to then - justifying a second referendum? Thought not. Let's just move on then.
 
So it's true. MEPs were just riding the gravy train, doing nothing for the country they were supposed to be representing. At least the British ones were leaders in that sense.
As I said, ""Wanting" isn't acting. Make a list in your head of all the people you know who were active in influencing policy in Brussels, who were part of pressure groups to influence EU policy, who developed opportunities across the EU and who emigrated, of their own volition, to work (not retire) in other EU states. (Not just France and Germany)."

You will struggle to list colleagues who were running backwards and forwards to Brussels, who were lobbying other EU nations and who were putting significant amounts of times into influencing European legislation.

And you'll struggle to list people who have moved off to Hungary, Poland, Greece and Portugal to develop their own pan-European careers.

MEP's? Make a list of all the things you know that your MEP achieved.

In 2014, 46 million people had a vote in the UK European Parliament elections.

30 million chose not to vote at all,

Just 16 million voted.

And which party garnered the most votes and seats? UKIP.

Now, explain how the majority of Britons wanted the UK to lead the EU in 2014, when most didn't turn out to vote, and those that did, preferred UKIP ?
 
As I said, ""Wanting" isn't acting. Make a list in your head of all the people you know who were active in influencing policy in Brussels, who were part of pressure groups to influence EU policy, who developed opportunities across the EU and who emigrated, of their own volition, to work (not retire) in other EU states. (Not just France and Germany)."

You will struggle to list colleagues who were running backwards and forwards to Brussels, who were lobbying other EU nations and who were putting significant amounts of times into influencing European legislation.

And you'll struggle to list people who have moved off to Hungary, Poland, Greece and Portugal to develop their own pan-European careers.

MEP's? Make a list of all the things you know that your MEP achieved.

In 2014, 46 million people had a vote in the UK European Parliament elections.

30 million chose not to vote at all,

Just 16 million voted.

And which party garnered the most votes and seats? UKIP.

Now, explain how the majority of Britons wanted the UK to lead the EU in 2014, when most didn't turn out to vote, and those that did, preferred UKIP ?
I don't care.
Why is it that remainers just want to get on with it and leavers are stuck there?
Don't answer that - I really don't care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JHS
While in no way ignoring the catastrophic effect on everyone that energy price rises are having, I continue to be baffled over the "solution" that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing and that so many seem to think is a great idea.

The fundamental issue is that global demand is outstripping global supply, thus driving up prices. How will a UK domestic price cap improve that global imbalance and thus reduce global prices? Surely the only way that prices will reduce is if demand drops to meet the available supply, supply increases to match the current level of demand, or a bit of both?
 
Why is it that remainers just want to get on with it and leavers are stuck there?
Pardon? Surely shome mishteak?

Isn't it the arch-remainers such as Adonis, Grieve, Hesseltine, et. al. who continually claim that "Brexit isn't working" and that everything that goes wrong - from a stubbed toe to the current drought - is because we left the EU?

My experience is that the vast majority of the population simply want to make the best fist of what we have, but that the very vocal extremists amongst the remainers, together with their partisan friends in the media, will take every opportunity to sow doubt and dissent.
 
Pardon? Surely shome mishteak?

Isn't it the arch-remainers such as Adonis, Grieve, Hesseltine, et. al. who continually claim that "Brexit isn't working" and that everything that goes wrong - from a stubbed toe to the current drought - is because we left the EU?

My experience is that the vast majority of the population simply want to make the best fist of what we have, but that the very vocal extremists amongst the remainers, together with their partisan friends in the media, will take every opportunity to sow doubt and dissent.
Europeans are preoccupied with what's going across Europe. The Germans have kicked out Merkel's party, pulling in Socialists, Liberals and Greens who are all over the place as to how to fix the Russian energy disruption. Macron has lost control of his legislature, with Eurosceptic parties outflanking him on both sides, Draghi's thrown in the towel and Italy has to work out how to reformulate "populism" and anti-immigration politicise by September, especially if Germany can't continue to finance Italy's never ending debt dependency. And Hungary's put the kibosh on any aspiration to approve the OECD's global Corporation tax agreement, kicking yet another European project down the road again.

Will the €2 trillion debt package pull the Eurozone out of its greatest currency crisis in two decades? Seems unlikely at this stage.
 
While in no way ignoring the catastrophic effect on everyone that energy price rises are having, I continue to be baffled over the "solution" that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing and that so many seem to think is a great idea.

The fundamental issue is that global demand is outstripping global supply, thus driving up prices. How will a UK domestic price cap improve that global imbalance and thus reduce global prices? Surely the only way that prices will reduce is if demand drops to meet the available supply, supply increases to match the current level of demand, or a bit of both?
All the energy companies treat the price cap as a target not a cap. It’s ridiculous that no matter how cheaply we can produce gas for our own domestic market the global price is the deciding factor.
 
I continue to be baffled over the "solution" that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing and that so many seem to think is a great idea.

I think the public have cottoned to how unrealistic this is as they can do simple maths better than Starmer.

There are 28 million households in the UK. If he wants to freeze the price cap for 1 year then that's going to cost a minimum of £2000 for each household and very possibly more as he doesn't know where the wholesale price is going over that time period. I make that £56 billion not the £29 billion he claims it will cost. If the open ended nature of the proposal isn't stupid enough wait until you try taking a subsidy of that magnitude away from people. They will scream blue murder.

People will need to get used to the idea that even if they do come down prices will never return to what they were.

An observation: After the announcement I looked at the BBC news web site and while the BBC had run the story hours before it did not appear in the top 10 most read articles. Had it been rational and realistic it would have been the top story. But as it's the sort of thing that Corbin would have proposed I think the public realise it's a non starter just like they did at the last election..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom