|
Prince John posted:The concession here is that parliament now has the authority to agree or reject her negotiated position before it gets voted on by Europe, which means changes to her negotiated position can still be demanded by parliament. The timing is still going to restrict the scope of the changes, but it's a significant concession. It turns out it's hardly concession at all. There will be a vote on the final deal, but if Westminster rejects it there won't be a renegotiation - realistically, parliament will never vote against the deal they're presented.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It turns out it's hardly concession at all. Agreeing with Pissflaps on this page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What's wrong with post-industrial landscapes, I live in one and I like it fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What's wrong with post-industrial landscapes, I live in one and I like it fine Speaking as someone who lives near Canary Wharf (and has done most of their life), post-post-industrial landscapes loving suck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Speaking as someone who lives near Canary Wharf (and has done most of their life), post-post-industrial landscapes loving suck. I thought you were a Leeds supporter
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The other statisitc I heard that may be wrong is that there is more land in Surrey that is used as golf course than is used as housing. According to the study reported on this page, which claims that around 2% of the UK is golf course and Surrey is the second most golf covered county, that may well be true. With a supposed 1.1% of the country being dedicated to housing and golf courses used mostly by the wealthy, the answer to the housing problem seems pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Hey, did you know that far more couples got married back when you needed to be married to get a mortgage, a woman needed the permission of her husband to make large purchases, divorce was shameful, and unmarried men were considered to be unreliable workers? That was pretty great, right? And you know whose fault it is that traditional marriage (no gays) is in decline?  The European Union Apparently because they weakened traditional self-reliance, which is why people aren't reliant on the institution of marriage any more. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Well you see Brexit will teleport us back to the 1970's
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Economically at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well you see Brexit will teleport us back to the 1970's Economically, yes. Also, workers' rights, yes. Also, public services, unemployment, inflation, anyway, all fun stuff you have to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I wonder if I will get to go on strike a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
I see that Marine A's lawyers are going down the 'he was mentally incompetent' route for the appeal. I mean, it's their job to give it a go, but I'm not convinced that you can claim diminished responsibility for someone who immediately reflects on their actions and comes to the correct conclusion ("I just broke the Geneva Convention").
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I see that Marine A's lawyers are going down the 'he was mentally incompetent' route for the appeal. Clearly he didn't understand the consequences of his actions despite clearly stating them on video at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
One might argue that doing your war crime on tape and admitting to it is a mark of substantial mental incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I see that Marine A's lawyers are going down the 'he was mentally incompetent' route for the appeal. I despise the people that support him, particularly those who go for the 'they would have done the same thing to him'. Well yes, they might have, but they certainly will now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Economically, yes. Also, workers' rights, yes. Also, public services, unemployment, inflation, anyway, all fun stuff you have to look forward to. I doubt it will be that bad. Though the Tories will do their best of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Economically, yes. Also, workers' rights, yes. Also, public services, unemployment, inflation, anyway, all fun stuff you have to look forward to. A lot of public services were better in the 70s. Workers rights absolutely were. Unemployment wasn't so bad either, at its worst it was as bad as today, and the process for claiming benefits was less stressful on the claimant. Inflation was terrible though. Can't see it getting that bad in the future, Bank of England seems to regard keeping inflation at a steady level their main job. Like, we'll lose jobs, more will become unemployed, It'll be lovely. But precisely because we won't end up like the 70s. It'll be much more like the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Workers rights absolutely were. Uh. The lack of statutory paid leave begs to differ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Uh. The lack of statutory paid leave begs to differ. And yet union power hadn't been completely decimated, which was more what I was thinking of. Though obviously things like the working time directive are very good. One of the biggest failures of the Blair Brown years was the refusal to repeal the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1990. Utterly shameful from a workers party. Attlee's government had legalised sympathy strikes within a year of taking office. forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
namesake posted:Agreeing with Pissflaps on this page. If the deal is bad enough - and it will be - there is the possibility of a VONC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:My "less than 2.5%" stands No it doesn't. You are just quoting the part in my link where he outlines the BBC report I was pretty sure you got your figure from. Read on and you will see: "I should raise a note of caution to this rather optimistic assessment. Just because a landscape appears to be green and not “built on” does not mean that it is natural (untouched by human activity) and able to support a viable, healthy ecosystem." As I said, urban areas contain thousands of bits of greenery. But people who complain about the countryside being ruined are not saying there are no sports grounds or grass verges in towns. Bits of greenery are not countryside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
If you're concerned about biodiversity I think perhaps the farmland-covered UK is not really the ideal alternative. When people say complain about "the countryside being ruined" I suspect they're primarily concerned about not having to spend time around people, probably foreign looking and/or poor people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When people say complain about "the countryside being ruined" I suspect they're primarily concerned about not having to spend time around people, probably foreign looking and/or poor people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're concerned about biodiversity I think perhaps the farmland-covered UK is not really the ideal alternative. Farmland is terrible, as I said before. But you're just being an arse with the last thing. Why is it so impossible that some people should love the natural world and mourn its loss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Farmland is terrible, as I said before. But you're just being an arse with the last thing. Why is it so impossible that some people should love the natural world and mourn its loss? It's not, they're just racist if they do, or worse, middle class. Honestly I've been fascinated by this whole argument today, it's a new one to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:30
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
 https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/829117403225260032
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
there are poor people in the countryside too remember. I grew up in Somerset and being able to roam around on bikes, explore woods and be outside in the fresh air was great. The countryside is an asset and for most cities in the UK except london and maybe birmingham you're really not far from some spectacular scenery
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm thinking about checking the date on a can of something to spray on Paul Nuttall if he tries to come near my begonias. If it's out of date, just throw it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
What frenzy? And really, the manchester evening news finding out first?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
May 25th?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Farmland is terrible, as I said before. But you're just being an arse with the last thing. Why is it so impossible that some people should love the natural world and mourn its loss? It's not impossible, I just think it highly unlikely that a majority of the people who claim to love "the countryside" and get real loving arsy about the prospect of other people living in it, are really just avid naturalists rather than just being classist and/or racist bellends. Y'know, what with the countryside being full of loving tories and poshos. I live near the countryside, but the absolute happiest thing about it is the large housing developments because each one means someone who doesn't have a house will have one, and they get to have one in a nice place. I have no tolerance or patience for NIMBYs. Especially not the loving shithead liberal they elected to the council on basically a "gently caress off we're full" platform. gently caress people who whinge about the sanctity of a loving farm field when people are sleeping on the street. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Is he going on holiday? OwlFancier posted:It's not impossible, I just think it highly unlikely that a majority of the people who claim to love "the countryside" are avid naturalists as much as they're just classist and/or racist bellends. People just like going outside Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Inflation was terrible though. Can't see it getting that bad in the future, Bank of England seems to regard keeping inflation at a steady level their main job. That literally is their main job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not impossible, I just think it highly unlikely that a majority of the people who claim to love "the countryside" and get real loving arsy about the prospect of other people living in it, are really just avid naturalists rather than just being classist and/or racist bellends. This is five edits and counting, go get some sleep, it's not worth fretting about in here, your anger ultimately doesn't lie with UKMT posters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Think I might go for a racist walk in the countryside this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Farmland is terrible, as I said before. But you're just being an arse with the last thing. Why is it so impossible that some people should love the natural world and mourn its loss? Again, the countryside doesn't begin and end with green belt land. There are people who genuinely love the environment, but most people who complain about the countryside being ruined are NIMBYs who couldn't give a poo poo about biodiversity as long as it doesn't affect their house prices. Actively protesting or blocking housebuilding while people are sleeping on the streets and families are spending years in tiny hotel rooms is just wrong. We have plenty of countryside, people take priority over preserving a few little slices of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
I dunno what or who you're even arguing with, we could double the number of houses that exist in the UK and it would barely impact the available countryside. Housing just doesn't take up that much space and the UK isn't particularly densely populated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Y'know, what with the countryside being full of loving tories and poshos. Yes, they've grabbed it for themselves because it is nice! Poor people would like to, if they could: take a look at the waiting list for social housing in Cornwall for example. I'm on that waiting list and know I won't ever get a house until I'm old enough to be a statutory priority, if I ever am. Nevertheless I'd rather carry on living in my freezing mouldy caravan, or camping out in my sister's shed than have the beautiful or biodiverse parts of Cornwall built over, because then I couldn't even visit them. (Of course measures like confiscating second homes, sharing out big ones, and building highrise in brownfield sites would be my preference.) jabby posted:Actively protesting or blocking housebuilding while people are sleeping on the streets and families are spending years in tiny hotel rooms is just wrong. We have plenty of countryside, people take priority over preserving a few little slices of it. No, that depends on the slice. Beauty is valuable and lost species are lost forever. (Wasn't talking about green belt land, which is in places I don't know, but I daresay some of it has some special value.) Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
jabby posted:There are people who genuinely love the environment, but most people who complain about the countryside being ruined are NIMBYs who couldn't give a poo poo about biodiversity as long as it doesn't affect their house prices. Actively protesting or blocking housebuilding while people are sleeping on the streets and families are spending years in tiny hotel rooms is just wrong. We have plenty of countryside, people take priority over preserving a few little slices of it. That doesn't change most NIMBYism being lovely people who don't want new growth to their village while living in new growth homes from the 70s, but I'd like there to be some consideration for the new homes to ensure that, at a minimum, they don't flood themselves out. Pissflaps posted:Think I might go for a racist walk in the countryside this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I'd rather carry on living in my freezing mouldy caravan, or camping out in my sister's shed than have the beautiful or biodiverse parts of Cornwall built over, because then I couldn't even visit them. That's great, but how many other people would you rather see on the streets than see houses built on that bit of countryside? It's not really about what you would prefer for yourself. Guavanaut posted:There's also the problem of new development tacked onto small rural villages being the shittiest cheapest and least conscientious development possible, to the point where the developers um and uh and tug at their collars when asked about basic issues like traffic and flooding and watersheds. Of course, and this is why housebuilding should be done in large part by local authorities rather than lovely developers. But still, let's not pretend that the main objection people have to new houses in their village is that the new houses are substandard and may flood. People have a 'gently caress you, got mine' attitude, will object to everything from a new house to a wind farm, and their views should absolutely be disregarded. Just because you own a house doesn't mean you own the whole loving village and surrounding area. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:03
|
|