And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
It would be fine if such art were accompanied by some explanatory notes explaining the purpose and intent, and where one can find out more of the style/genre/story.
But too often the experts believe that educating the plebs is beneath them, and prefer to sneer.
Many years ago I went around the Tate Modern with my parents and then-girlfriend. In a few hours I found only one thing that caught my interest: a map of Britain with placenames (and I think roads) exchanged.
As we left, my GF asked my dad what he thought if it. He said at the top of his voice: "It's all a load of sh*t."
Though it's worth it for the building: Bankside is a glorious piece of architecture. So much better than Battersea.
Philistine! Battersea had a beautiful marble interior as well as its iconic chimneys.
On the subject matter of the article, I don't agree at all with Alastair. The fact that the EU is "important" doesn't make it qualitatively different to any other Treaty, and it's clear it's a prerogative power.
That isn't to say Parliament has no role - triggering Article 50 doesn't repeal the European Communities Act 1972, or other legislation enacted in connection with membership (to the extent these will in fact be changed). But I really can't see the courts ruling Article 50 hasn't been validly triggered by use of the prerogative.
I see the remainers and modern arts enthusiasts are aligning. This referendum really did expose the establishment/elite asnin the minority side in a huge cultural divide.
Re: Modern art.The reason I think it is so ugly is modern attitudes to materialism. With modern secularism the material world has become a god and is to be venerated in its raw, functional, even Brutalist state.
In times gone by the material world was seen as worthless in comparisn to the spiritual so even the most functional public building (eg Crossness Sewage Works) would be adorned with embellishments that uplifted you tp higher planes as the material is of no real value other than its moulding to beauty and perfection by man to reflect the spiritual beauty of God whom man is created in the image of.
Mr. kle4, a minority in the country but they only need 326 MPs or a Lords majority to gum things up.
A temporary set back if it ever happened, and I don't see how it would. Short of genuine catastrophe causing a complete public and thus political restructuring, Brexit is happening, who wants to donate their career to actually stopping it? A lot fewer than those who are willing to say they'd stop it, and even those are a minority.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
Just finished Jenkins' biography of Churchill. Something I didn't know and surprised me was that Eisenhower is directly quoted several times as saying that nukes were just the latest development of weaponry and of course we should be ready to use them; moreover, that the Russians were prostitutes who needed to be driven onto the back streets. Churchill was appalled and spent his last couple of years in office largely neglecting everything else in an attempt to restrain Eisenhower and the even more hawkish Dulles. So possibly keeping ourselves in check was a factor too.
Ultimately I think we should give som credit to apparently repulsive people like Nixon and Brezhnev, even Stalin, and in particular Kennedy and Kruschev, for never being quite bonkers enough to unleash WW3.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I think I'd prefer the pretty pictures. The problem with the Tate bricks etc. is that it turns art into something that can only be appreciated by a handful of experts. It's similar to the view that literature is not meant to enjoyed by the masses.
I also get the feeling that 'modern' art can quickly become the refuge of those 'artists' starting out who have imagination but no actual artistic talent. Something that anyone could do with neither ability nor training, such as putting s few bricks in a row, is not really art, in my humble opinion.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
I think the art critics (on either side) are rather missing the point. Most art is mundane crap - and always has been. It's just that the crap tends not to survive over a long period of time, and of course that people have the ability to create a great deal more junk than has ever been possible historically.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Definitely not. Why move it away from Manchester where the expertise is?
I think Port Talbot needs to be downsized massively but over a longer period of time so that alternative industries and jobs can be created while the steel manufacturing starts to drop. Having a big bang moment where 5000 people are suddenly out of work will be disastrous for the local area.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
EDIT: Plus you could probably buy the whole Port Talbot site for a quid.... Manchester is rather more expensive if you want to start buying land for production facilities.
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
If a 50.01% majority on a 15% turnout was the result that might be a valid reason.
- although considerations like that didnt stop the welsh assembly going ahead.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Delusional. The UK and EU have already poured millions into Manchester for graphene - a lack of money is not the limitation. Plus, most researchers working in this area would have no desire to live in Port Talbot. They are all trendy metropolitans who voted remain and would clear off to Europe if threatened with Port Talbot.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
I think the art critics (on either side) are rather missing the point. Most art is mundane crap - and always has been. It's just that the crap tends not to survive over a long period of time, and of course that people have the ability to create a great deal more junk than has ever been possible historically.
Except in architceture where you are lumbered for decades or longer
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
I think the art critics (on either side) are rather missing the point. Most art is mundane crap - and always has been. It's just that the crap tends not to survive over a long period of time, and of course that people have the ability to create a great deal more junk than has ever been possible historically.
Has the white dot on the white background or the pile of bricks survived??. They are everyday examples of shite.
I see the remainers and modern arts enthusiasts are aligning. This referendum really did expose the establishment/elite asnin the minority side in a huge cultural divide.
Re: Modern art.The reason I think it is so ugly is modern attitudes to materialism. With modern secularism the material world has become a god and is to be venerated in its raw, functional, even Brutalist state.
In times gone by the material world was seen as worthless in comparisn to the spiritual so even the most functional public building (eg Crossness Sewage Works) would be adorned with embellishments that uplifted you tp higher planes as the material is of no real value other than its moulding to beauty and perfection by man to reflect the spiritual beauty of God whom man is created in the image of.
Agree to a certain extent: Crossness is a gem. But those embelishments were cheaper then than now.
I'm not sure it was always done for spiritual reasons: there was an awful lot of: "We need to have a 'better' station building / town hall than our neighbour to reflect our worth."
For instance, that explains the superlative St Pancras and Manchester Town Hall. God and religion had very little to do with it: oneupmanship did.
The Commons might vote either way. I think the Lords likelier to vote for us to stay in.
A minority of Remain supporters are trying to ignore and override the referendum's result.
I suspect the Lords explains why we are having this debate. Had we just one house, I suggest a commons vote would have been easily accepted as reasonable, we would have had the vote, and most MPs would have voted to respect the referendum outcome.
I come back to the fact that the AV referendum was agreed as binding - because the LibDems were worried about the larger parties' and MPs' self interest - whereas the EU one was specifically determined as advisory, for some reason. (?)
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
The academics are all in Manchester and it has a leading university. Port Talbot has neither, everything would need to be moved there. Mini-mills are probably the future but that will mean a 60-70% reduction in jobs for the same steel output. Those people are not suitably skilled to work with graphene either as it is much more like a silicon product than industrial product. The manufacturing process is closer to lithography than bulk manufacturing. If you said that Port Talbot should become the leading manufacturer of carbon products to feed into graphene that could work, but would need serious investment and retraining of the local workforce. Not as much as graphene manufacturing, but still a fair amount.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
EDIT: Plus you could probably buy the whole Port Talbot site for a quid.... Manchester is rather more expensive if you want to start buying land for production facilities.
How do you plan on forcing the existing domain experts to move to Port Talbot over, say, MIT or whatever the Germans have? Or do you expect world-wide graphene research to shutdown for a decade while the local university upskills?
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
The academics are all in Manchester and it has a leading university. Port Talbot has neither, everything would need to be moved there. Mini-mills are probably the future but that will mean a 60-70% reduction in jobs for the same steel output. Those people are not suitably skilled to work with graphene either as it is much more like a silicon product than industrial product. The manufacturing process is closer to lithography than bulk manufacturing. If you said that Port Talbot should become the leading manufacturer of carbon products to feed into graphene that could work, but would need serious investment and retraining of the local workforce. Not as much as graphene manufacturing, but still a fair amount.
Fair enough - I'd be investing in that retraining. Now. And build in the option to site mini-mills there too.
EDIT: And maybe make sure it had a bloody great Grammar school, to entice those Manc metropolitan types....
I see the remainers and modern arts enthusiasts are aligning. This referendum really did expose the establishment/elite asnin the minority side in a huge cultural divide.
Re: Modern art.The reason I think it is so ugly is modern attitudes to materialism. With modern secularism the material world has become a god and is to be venerated in its raw, functional, even Brutalist state.
In times gone by the material world was seen as worthless in comparisn to the spiritual so even the most functional public building (eg Crossness Sewage Works) would be adorned with embellishments that uplifted you tp higher planes as the material is of no real value other than its moulding to beauty and perfection by man to reflect the spiritual beauty of God whom man is created in the image of.
It's a funny ole thing how political 'art' is - and how some deride 'pretty art' as being inferior. I find that weird. My house is smothered in framed works - landscapes, old prints of ships or greyhounds, bookplates of zoological specimens, maps and romance/Victorian sentimental memorial etchings. I've probably got about 60 hanging up.
I think they're all lovely for many reasons - the execution, the detail, the subject or the feeling it exudes. I want to stand and look at them again and again - and marvel at the talent. As a scholar of Renaissance art passim, it's so clever and witty if you know what to look for.
The Commons might vote either way. I think the Lords likelier to vote for us to stay in.
A minority of Remain supporters are trying to ignore and override the referendum's result.
I suspect the Lords explains why we are having this debate. Had we just one house, I suggest a commons vote would have been easily accepted as reasonable, we would have had the vote, and most MPs would have voted to respect the referendum outcome.
I come back to the fact that the AV referendum was agreed as binding - because the LibDems were worried about the larger parties' and MPs' self interest - whereas the EU one was specifically determined as advisory, for some reason. (?)
I would guess that the AV one being binding is the exception, because the LDs would have insisted so in the coalition agreement. Whereas generally, no government wants to force their own hand, so will always make a referendum advisory giving them maximum space to manoeuvre afterwards, even if they support the policy.
Yep - I wonder how far they have got on their little recent difficulty, I'm sure they'll have a team still going through it at any rate. No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
We should get onto the old topic of whether good computer code can, and should, be seen as 'art'
What makes a chunk of code good? In my view good code does its job with an elegance, simplicity and cleverness that actually turns it into something beautiful. G.H. Hardy, probably the best of UK mathematicians in the 20th century, said some similar about good mathematics in his book "A Mathematician's Apology" (still in print and well worth a read).
Not everybody will see the beauty in good code or mathematics, which perhaps brings us back to Mr. Toppings point up-thread about needing the vocabulary relevant to a piece of art to understand it. Mind you, I still think most of the stuff in the Tate Modern is pretentious, self indulgent rubbish and it was a waste of a day of my life to go and see it, even though we had an expert to guide us round.
@FF43 The legality collides with the politics. There's nothing stopping the Government putting Article 50 to Parliament and that's why it should do. It's simple. Government proposes; Parliament disposes.
The only reason Government doesn't want to do so is to stop Brexit being debated and its plan, or lack of one, discussed.
----
Implying that an Article 50 vote is the only time to hold the government to account on the matter. Wasn't Davis in the chamber a few days ago?
That's a red herring. We are talking here about a specific executive action that that the Executive has decided not to submit to parliamentary authority. There's a principle. Governments are answerable to Parliament and Parliament is answerable to voters. I don't expect Parliament to reject or seriously delay triggering of Article 50. Personally I probably wouldn't approve if they did. But it is Parliament's call not the Government's and Parliament would have to justify any decision for delay or rejection to the voters. Theoretically they may have a good reason to refer it back and in that case, it should take its course.
It isn't just a case of whether to Brexit, but when and how. The fact Brexit is a mess and that the Government doesn't want to talk about it, isn't a good reason to exclude it from proper scrutiny.
The Government is on very dodgy ground using a loophole to exclude Brexit from parliamentary authority.
On Graphene, its good to see that the government have approved the funding for £30m extension of the existing centre. Clearly things are going well. Now is the time to subsidise local companies in Manchester and to put "national interest" tests on foreign buyers. This is the stage when UK technology companies invariably sell out to the highest (usually American) bidder and UK developed technology moves into foreign ownership.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
I think the art critics (on either side) are rather missing the point. Most art is mundane crap - and always has been. It's just that the crap tends not to survive over a long period of time, and of course that people have the ability to create a great deal more junk than has ever been possible historically.
Except in architceture where you are lumbered for decades or longer
I did say *long* period of time. It's really hard to judge what's truly of value until stuff has been re-assessed by several succeeding generations.
On Graphene, its good to see that the government have approved the funding for £30m extension of the existing centre. Clearly things are going well. Now is the time to subsidise local companies in Manchester and to put "national interest" tests on foreign buyers. This is the stage when UK technology companies invariably sell out to the highest (usually American) bidder and UK developed technology moves into foreign ownership.
On Graphene, its good to see that the government have approved the funding for £30m extension of the existing centre. Clearly things are going well. Now is the time to subsidise local companies in Manchester and to put "national interest" tests on foreign buyers. This is the stage when UK technology companies invariably sell out to the highest (usually American) bidder and UK developed technology moves into foreign ownership.
FF43 is giving scrutiny to the terms of Brexit the same thing as putting a parliamentary step in the journey to triggering A50? I think not. Tezza should just trigger when she's ready but then parliament should be all over the following two years of negotiations. The people have mandated the FACT of Brexit but it's up to politicians to manage the NATURE of it.
Yep - I wonder how far they have got on their little recent difficulty, I'm sure they'll have a team still going through it at any rate. No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
Indeed.
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life. 2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out. 3) They make mistakes. 4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
Indeed an extraordinary achievement. Perhaps closer to art than you might think though, given that it was build primarily to impress the Soviets rather than for scientific or utilitarian purposes. And at vast public expense
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
Solid PSF figures today, £10.5bn borrowing against £11.5bn last year, YoY £33.8bn vs £38.7bn. The current budget deficit is down by over £5bn YoY as well.
The Commons might vote either way. I think the Lords likelier to vote for us to stay in.
A minority of Remain supporters are trying to ignore and override the referendum's result.
I suspect the Lords explains why we are having this debate. Had we just one house, I suggest a commons vote would have been easily accepted as reasonable, we would have had the vote, and most MPs would have voted to respect the referendum outcome.
I come back to the fact that the AV referendum was agreed as binding - because the LibDems were worried about the larger parties' and MPs' self interest - whereas the EU one was specifically determined as advisory, for some reason. (?)
I would guess that the AV one being binding is the exception, because the LDs would have insisted so in the coalition agreement. Whereas generally, no government wants to force their own hand, so will always make a referendum advisory giving them maximum space to manoeuvre afterwards, even if they support the policy.
Thing about a referendum is that you don't just quietly have one and then tuck it away in your back pocket for later use or not.
They are bloody great beasts creating their own momentum.
The one thing I am surprised about is how little uproar there has been over the non-triggering of A50 (there has of course been uproar in the EU). Of course it makes perfect sense to delay but I had expected more of a get a bloody move on atmosphere.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Yep - I wonder how far they have got on their little recent difficulty, I'm sure they'll have a team still going through it at any rate. No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
Indeed.
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life. 2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out. 3) They make mistakes. 4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
Though I bet Musk'll learn rapidly.
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
Nah...modern art is a load of Jackson Pollocks.
I quite like him in a splatter sort of way - reminds me of the painting of toilet cubicles when I was at school, but more colourful.
TBH, I think Jeremy Kyle is more powerful commentary than 99% of modern art. Those who sneer and haven't watched it are missing something extraordinary. It's an hour a day of failure - family, culture and society. And immensely shouty and funny.
I see the remainers and modern arts enthusiasts are aligning. This referendum really did expose the establishment/elite asnin the minority side in a huge cultural divide.
Re: Modern art.The reason I think it is so ugly is modern attitudes to materialism. With modern secularism the material world has become a god and is to be venerated in its raw, functional, even Brutalist state.
In times gone by the material world was seen as worthless in comparisn to the spiritual so even the most functional public building (eg Crossness Sewage Works) would be adorned with embellishments that uplifted you tp higher planes as the material is of no real value other than its moulding to beauty and perfection by man to reflect the spiritual beauty of God whom man is created in the image of.
Agree to a certain extent: Crossness is a gem. But those embelishments were cheaper then than now.
I'm not sure it was always done for spiritual reasons: there was an awful lot of: "We need to have a 'better' station building / town hall than our neighbour to reflect our worth."
For instance, that explains the superlative St Pancras and Manchester Town Hall. God and religion had very little to do with it: oneupmanship did.
I agree that it's a shame a lot of modern buildings can be build. One of my favourite styles of architecture is Bristol Byzantine:
We’ll know on Saturday how badly Smith has done in the leadership race, the interesting bit is what happens next in the long running Labour soap opera. The plot line is anyone’s guess.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
The academics are all in Manchester and it has a leading university. Port Talbot has neither, everything would need to be moved there. Mini-mills are probably the future but that will mean a 60-70% reduction in jobs for the same steel output. Those people are not suitably skilled to work with graphene either as it is much more like a silicon product than industrial product. The manufacturing process is closer to lithography than bulk manufacturing. If you said that Port Talbot should become the leading manufacturer of carbon products to feed into graphene that could work, but would need serious investment and retraining of the local workforce. Not as much as graphene manufacturing, but still a fair amount.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that the North should basically be run down and everyone encouraged to move to the economically productive South East.
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
We’ll know on Saturday how badly Smith has done in the leadership race, the interesting bit is what happens next in the long running Labour soap opera. The plot line is anyone’s guess.
Dan reckons show trials and punishment beatings followed by deselection.......
Corbyn's gulag archipelago: DAN HODGES says Labour MPs are on their way to a show trial
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
Two multi-billionaires are competing with the aid of massive subsidies (sorry, research contracts) from the American government. No stale rhetoric about picking winners (a bad thing) and magic money trees over there.
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
Whilst I dislike 99% of German WW1/WW2 era art - the good stuff was powerful political commentary of the time. It's angry, brutal and feels dangerous to look at - it jumps from the canvas. Same with the Russians. Today's stuff is trite attention seeking by people who squawk about FreeTrade quinoa.
Not PB's finest hour, this deviation onto how crap Modern Art is.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
Nah...modern art is a load of Jackson Pollocks.
TBF, 'modern art' is probably too sweeping a term. Personally I have no difficulty accepting abstract art, Dali, graffiti/banksy, a lot of modern sculpture, modern design, etc. as being of artistic merit. I just draw a line before sinking to the pretence of fraudulent 'art' like a square of bricks or an unmade bed.
I also think that December 2015 will be recognised as peak UK indebtedness, 85%. Since then UK debt has remained at about the same level varying by up to 2% below. With inflation set to rise and nominal growth with it, those debt levels should start falling over the next couple of years.
FF43 is giving scrutiny to the terms of Brexit the same thing as putting a parliamentary step in the journey to triggering A50? I think not. Tezza should just trigger when she's ready but then parliament should be all over the following two years of negotiations. The people have mandated the FACT of Brexit but it's up to politicians to manage the NATURE of it.
It's not a question of "putting a parliamentary step". It's a question of using a loophole to deliberately exclude Parliament from oversight over the execution of the most important Government policy of recent years.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. I agree. Doesn't harm repeating it.
Yep - I wonder how far they have got on their little recent difficulty, I'm sure they'll have a team still going through it at any rate. No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
Indeed.
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life. 2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out. 3) They make mistakes. 4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
Though I bet Musk'll learn rapidly.
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
Having two teams in competition is a bloody good way to advance the science. If you'd said five years ago that someone would be landing rockets back where they launched or on a sea platform, everyone would have called you bonkers!
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
Nah, that's the Euro.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
Two multi-billionaires are competing with the aid of massive subsidies (sorry, research contracts) from the American government. No stale rhetoric about picking winners (a bad thing) and magic money trees over there.
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
The problem with Port Talbot is not that people do not demand steel. It is simply that an old, inefficient, underinvested steel plant, a long way from sources of iron ore or coal, and with no local customer base for its product has no economic future.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need to put to bed and replaced with newer mills with on demand local energy.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that the North should basically be run down and everyone encouraged to move to the economically productive South East.
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Even if Parliament is asked to approve it the Tories have a majority in the Commons and Corbyn is likely to order his MPs to vote it through in respect of the will of the people, it will only be some Labour rebels, the LDs and SNP who try and delay it. The Lords may be more difficult but even there they can only delay it for a year or so
Personally I think the Lords should not go against the 17.4M in a referendum the decision of which the Govt of the day said would be implemented (see leaflet at a cost of millions posted through all our doors). That should really be that. I don't remember there being a move by the Lords to block the creation of the Welsh Assembly which was voted through on just about a 50.5 v 49.5% margin "because people were too thick/didn't know what they were getting/there were lies on both sides/we just don't like it etc".
However, if their Lordships went so far as to go against both the lower house filled with the people's representatives and the will of the people as expressed in a referendum, on a matter of such significance never mind delaying things by a year our two under the present powers they have, I would suggest the job centre beckons for the lot of them, pronto.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit. Cameron lied. He lied as the head of the executive. That's why it's important Parliament is sovereign and is seen to be so.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
It's called history.
As emerging nations emerge they will impinge upon developed ones. We always had the most to lose, from Chechnya or China.
Is it a not such a great achievement that hundreds of millions of Chinese people are better off (and trust me the base was low) at our expense?
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit.
Apart from one of the current Labour leader candidates, and the lib dems and numerous other people....
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
I don't need to be "challenged" to think, it happens spontaneously. Art is about the production of beauty by the exercise of skill, ideas are for the written and spoken word. Try reading "The Emperor's New Clothes" to see what I mean.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
Even if Parliament is asked to approve it the Tories have a majority in the Commons and Corbyn is likely to order his MPs to vote it through in respect of the will of the people, it will only be some Labour rebels, the LDs and SNP who try and delay it. The Lords may be more difficult but even there they can only delay it for a year or so
Personally I think the Lords should not go against the 17.4M in a referendum the decision of which the Govt of the day said would be implemented (see leaflet at a cost of millions posted through all our doors). That should really be that. I don't remember there being a move by the Lords to block the creation of the Welsh Assembly which was voted through on just about a 50.5 v 49.5% margin "because people were too thick/didn't know what they were getting/there were lies on both sides/we just don't like it etc".
However, if their Lordships went so far as to go against both the lower house filled with the people's representatives and the will of the people as expressed in a referendum, on a matter of such significance never mind delaying things by a year our two under the present powers they have, I would suggest the job centre beckons for the lot of them, pronto.
It's certainly fair to say that if their Lordships attempt to overrule a vote of the People on a specific issue, then Lords reform will quickly move to the top of the political agenda in the Other Place.
Two multi-billionaires are competing with the aid of massive subsidies (sorry, research contracts) from the American government. No stale rhetoric about picking winners (a bad thing) and magic money trees over there.
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
Blue Origin has very little government funding, it's almost all Bezos's own money, and quite different from most of his competitors.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit.
Apart from one of the current Labour leader candidates, and the lib dems and numerous other people....
Yep, no one at all.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
FF43 is giving scrutiny to the terms of Brexit the same thing as putting a parliamentary step in the journey to triggering A50? I think not. Tezza should just trigger when she's ready but then parliament should be all over the following two years of negotiations. The people have mandated the FACT of Brexit but it's up to politicians to manage the NATURE of it.
It's not a question of "putting a parliamentary step". It's a question of using a loophole to deliberately exclude Parliament from oversight over the execution of the most important Government policy of recent years.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. I agree. Doesn't harm repeating it.
I defer to the constitutional lawyers on here, but what what we voted in was to leave the EU. There was no vote on what the final settlement might be.
Once we work out whether we are soft, hard, or something in between, there ought to be either a vote in parliament, a general election, or another referendum.
I do not favour another referendum.
There simply hasn't been a more important decision that this one in the UK since the decision to enter the EU in the 1970s.
Leavers who don't want to involve the people (by whatever means) are revealing their own paranoia about the final outcome.
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
My prediction: in ten years, if both companies are still about (which I think they will), they'll be working fairly closely together. Maybe still with separate rockets, but with increasingly common tech. For instance a space tug'll probably be necessary, and I can't see them both developing one.
Likewise, both will doubtess be working with Bigelow. Then there are all the other systems, such as docking (though there is an international standard for that), life support systems etc.
Yep - I wonder how far they have got on their little recent difficulty, I'm sure they'll have a team still going through it at any rate. No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
Indeed.
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life. 2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out. 3) They make mistakes. 4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
Though I bet Musk'll learn rapidly.
The SpaceX blow-up rate is about par for a well managed programme. In general I would say Musk is an equal mix of hype and relatively good execution on tricky projects. He probably needs both. Saying SpaceX will be another Ariane and just as good as they are, or Tesla is one of the better electric cars doesn't sell the dream.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
Spain, Portugal and Greece have done very well out of the EU. They have rebuilt their entire infrastructures on the back of European money.
"Mr Justice Jackson, who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, said he had made his ruling as short as possible so that the older children and their mother could follow it.
Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
Each to their own, although personally that is precisely my problem - I don't find a lot of modern art challenges me to think about the world at all. It just has a lot of people telling me about how much it is challenging the world, for reasons that usually escape me.
Modern art which clearly took a great deal of effort and/or skill on the other hand I can appreciate even if I don't like the way it looks and think portentous commentary about is message is a load of shash. If something looks like it could be slapped together in 5 minutes and looks terrible (without that being its intention), then the real artistry is in the marketing of what it is about, not the piece itself. (This is of course true of more traditional art, be it paintings or novels, to some extent - many a work supposedly of great significance might seem to lack other merits other than its supposed message, or a work by a great name is praised more than something from an unknown which may well look better)
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
I don't see the difference between the government requesting an advisory vote from parliament, and parliament authorising an advisory vote from the electorate.
FF43 is giving scrutiny to the terms of Brexit the same thing as putting a parliamentary step in the journey to triggering A50? I think not. Tezza should just trigger when she's ready but then parliament should be all over the following two years of negotiations. The people have mandated the FACT of Brexit but it's up to politicians to manage the NATURE of it.
It's not a question of "putting a parliamentary step". It's a question of using a loophole to deliberately exclude Parliament from oversight over the execution of the most important Government policy of recent years.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. I agree. Doesn't harm repeating it.
I defer to the constitutional lawyers on here, but what what we voted in was to leave the EU. There was no vote on what the final settlement might be.
Once we work out whether we are soft, hard, or something in between, there ought to be either a vote in parliament, a general election, or another referendum.
I do not favour another referendum.
There simply hasn't been a more important decision that this one in the UK since the decision to enter the EU in the 1970s.
Leavers who don't want to involve the people (by whatever means) are revealing their own paranoia about the final outcome.
There will be a General Election. If people don't like the Brexit outcome, they will vote (or not) in that election to express their opinion.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit.
Apart from one of the current Labour leader candidates, and the lib dems and numerous other people....
Yep, no one at all.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Owen Smith has said: “I’m a passionate pro-European, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep us in the EU”.
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
Spain, Portugal and Greece have done very well out of the EU. They have rebuilt their entire infrastructures on the back of European UK & German Taxpayers (ie our) money.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that the North should basically be run down and everyone encouraged to move to the economically productive South East.
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
At least the £ seems to have bottomed out, for now at least, at $1.29 ish, after several days of falls; the lowest dollar rate since early 1985 (a time of crisis during the miners' strike and at the height of IRA terror).
Well he has Bezos on his heels, New Glenn skips Falcon 9 in terms of lift and competes directly against the Heavy setup (Slightly less thrust though a much larger faring). Bezos is slightly behind for now, but whether he will be in a decade's time is another matter. Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
Two multi-billionaires are competing with the aid of massive subsidies (sorry, research contracts) from the American government. No stale rhetoric about picking winners (a bad thing) and magic money trees over there.
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
The USA will benefit in the long run.
Yes, that is the point. It is a shame our government (of whichever colour) does not follow the American example in helping industries to develop and thrive. As MaxPB laments in this thread, where are our national interest defences against foreign takeovers?
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit.
Apart from one of the current Labour leader candidates, and the lib dems and numerous other people....
Yep, no one at all.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Owen Smith has said: “I’m a passionate pro-European, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep us in the EU”.
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
He and others are free to try. That has no bearing on the thread issue of constitutional authority, even if those trying are conflating the two by seeing it as an opportunity. While if no one were trying to block Brexit I doubt the question would have been raised, it should have been.Not clarifying issues before they are raised is one of the reasons our consituational settlements are such a glorious hodgepodge in the first place.
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life. 2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out. 3) They make mistakes. 4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
Though I bet Musk'll learn rapidly.
The SpaceX blow-up rate is about par for a well managed programme. In general I would say Musk is an equal mix of hype and relatively good execution on tricky projects. He probably needs both. Saying SpaceX will be another Ariane and just as good as they are, or Tesla is one of the better electric cars doesn't sell the dream.
+1 on the degree of hype involved. Out of idle curiosity I looked up the date of the first production electric car with rechargeable battery. 1884 is the answer - the year Oscar Wilde got married, and Scott of the Antarctic turned 16. Nothing wrong with that, but Tesla's publicity, and pricing, suggests the idea is so advanced it must have reached us via a timewarp from an alien intergalactic civilisation. Cf also the "Autopilot" on the Tesla, which is actually cruise control plus a couple of cameras.
Comments
I rest my case.
That isn't to say Parliament has no role - triggering Article 50 doesn't repeal the European Communities Act 1972, or other legislation enacted in connection with membership (to the extent these will in fact be changed). But I really can't see the courts ruling Article 50 hasn't been validly triggered by use of the prerogative.
Re: Modern art.The reason I think it is so ugly is modern attitudes to materialism. With modern secularism the material world has become a god and is to be venerated in its raw, functional, even Brutalist state.
In times gone by the material world was seen as worthless in comparisn to the spiritual so even the most functional public building (eg Crossness Sewage Works) would be adorned with embellishments that uplifted you tp higher planes as the material is of no real value other than its moulding to beauty and perfection by man to reflect the spiritual beauty of God whom man is created in the image of.
Ultimately I think we should give som credit to apparently repulsive people like Nixon and Brezhnev, even Stalin, and in particular Kennedy and Kruschev, for never being quite bonkers enough to unleash WW3.
I think Port Talbot needs to be downsized massively but over a longer period of time so that alternative industries and jobs can be created while the steel manufacturing starts to drop. Having a big bang moment where 5000 people are suddenly out of work will be disastrous for the local area.
EDIT: Plus you could probably buy the whole Port Talbot site for a quid.... Manchester is rather more expensive if you want to start buying land for production facilities.
- although considerations like that didnt stop the welsh assembly going ahead.
I'm not sure it was always done for spiritual reasons: there was an awful lot of: "We need to have a 'better' station building / town hall than our neighbour to reflect our worth."
For instance, that explains the superlative St Pancras and Manchester Town Hall. God and religion had very little to do with it: oneupmanship did.
REMAIN 48%
just sayin....!
I come back to the fact that the AV referendum was agreed as binding - because the LibDems were worried about the larger parties' and MPs' self interest - whereas the EU one was specifically determined as advisory, for some reason. (?)
I think Musk should rethink the ITS name, it's a bit... functional.
Wonder which of those will come first, and when
EDIT: And maybe make sure it had a bloody great Grammar school, to entice those Manc metropolitan types....
I think they're all lovely for many reasons - the execution, the detail, the subject or the feeling it exudes. I want to stand and look at them again and again - and marvel at the talent. As a scholar of Renaissance art passim, it's so clever and witty if you know what to look for.
http://www.spacex.com/mars
No reason that Musk can't make a success of his Guadalajara trip anyhow.
(If someone had died in the accident then he'd have cancelled I suspect, as is it is only money and steel that evaporated fortunately)
Not everybody will see the beauty in good code or mathematics, which perhaps brings us back to Mr. Toppings point up-thread about needing the vocabulary relevant to a piece of art to understand it. Mind you, I still think most of the stuff in the Tate Modern is pretentious, self indulgent rubbish and it was a waste of a day of my life to go and see it, even though we had an expert to guide us round.
Incredible engineering and beautiful. That's an icon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk
It isn't just a case of whether to Brexit, but when and how. The fact Brexit is a mess and that the Government doesn't want to talk about it, isn't a good reason to exclude it from proper scrutiny.
The Government is on very dodgy ground using a loophole to exclude Brexit from parliamentary authority.
It's really hard to judge what's truly of value until stuff has been re-assessed by several succeeding generations.
Compare with the Iphone.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/owen-smith-concedes-defeat-labour-leadership-race/
Musk is not entirely unimaginative when naming stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series#In_Popular_Culture
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470918/Graphene_-_the_worldwide_patent_landscape_in_2015.pdf
Though after having read Ashley Vance's hagiography of Musk, I'm slightly more sceptical of SpaceX's chances. He's a great guy for developing and prototyping, but less so for routine work.
Why? He works the engineers at SpaceX and Tesla immensely hard. He recruits out of uni and works them till they drop. As an example, he lambasted an employee for taking a day off when his wife gave birth. There are several worrying aspects to this sort of attitude in a boss:
1) You don't get the best people - some people don't want to put up with that sort of thing. You can be an excellent engineer and still want a life.
2) You don't get the best out of them, as they rapidly wear out.
3) They make mistakes.
4) When they leave, you lose talent and knowledge.
That's fine when you're working in the prototype phase, developing changes rapidly. It's terrible when you want someone to do the same thing over and over perfectly: the production phase.
Basically: Tesla, and to a lesser extent SpaceX, needs to move from a development to a production phase, and that requires very different skills. I'm not sure Musk has them. If not, he has to learn them in a hurry.
Another example comes from NASA's report on the crewed capsule. NASA are paying SpaceX a fortune to develop this, yet the engineers SpaceX have working on it are also working on other projects. That's useful in a way: there might be cross-transferable knowledge and skills. On the other, it leads to delays and mistakes.
Though I bet Musk'll learn rapidly.
It's like listening to your racist uncle complain about all the "foreign muck" he was forced to eat in Benidorm.
They are bloody great beasts creating their own momentum.
The one thing I am surprised about is how little uproar there has been over the non-triggering of A50 (there has of course been uproar in the EU). Of course it makes perfect sense to delay but I had expected more of a get a bloody move on atmosphere.
The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Good to have two multi-billionaires competing though.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
TBH, I think Jeremy Kyle is more powerful commentary than 99% of modern art. Those who sneer and haven't watched it are missing something extraordinary. It's an hour a day of failure - family, culture and society. And immensely shouty and funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Byzantine
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Corbyn's gulag archipelago: DAN HODGES says Labour MPs are on their way to a show trial
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3794798/Labour-MPs-way-trial-says-Dan-Hodges.html#ixzz4KsVGAYJ3
Edit: internal quotes removed to meet length restrictions.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your post. I agree. Doesn't harm repeating it.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
However, if their Lordships went so far as to go against both the lower house filled with the people's representatives and the will of the people as expressed in a referendum, on a matter of such significance never mind delaying things by a year our two under the present powers they have, I would suggest the job centre beckons for the lot of them, pronto.
As emerging nations emerge they will impinge upon developed ones. We always had the most to lose, from Chechnya or China.
Is it a not such a great achievement that hundreds of millions of Chinese people are better off (and trust me the base was low) at our expense?
Yep, no one at all.
Once we work out whether we are soft, hard, or something in between, there ought to be either a vote in parliament, a general election, or another referendum.
I do not favour another referendum.
There simply hasn't been a more important decision that this one in the UK since the decision to enter the EU in the 1970s.
Leavers who don't want to involve the people (by whatever means) are revealing their own paranoia about the final outcome.
Likewise, both will doubtess be working with Bigelow. Then there are all the other systems, such as docking (though there is an international standard for that), life support systems etc.
Edit: plus we at the top *are* richer.
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/plain-english-campaign-hails-write-ruling-by-judge-11364097883873
"Mr Justice Jackson, who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, said he had made his ruling as short as possible so that the older children and their mother could follow it.
Modern art which clearly took a great deal of effort and/or skill on the other hand I can appreciate even if I don't like the way it looks and think portentous commentary about is message is a load of shash. If something looks like it could be slapped together in 5 minutes and looks terrible (without that being its intention), then the real artistry is in the marketing of what it is about, not the piece itself. (This is of course true of more traditional art, be it paintings or novels, to some extent - many a work supposedly of great significance might seem to lack other merits other than its supposed message, or a work by a great name is praised more than something from an unknown which may well look better)
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.