I can't afford it. For context, I paid £500 for my current vehicle back in 2020. My bills have only gone up since, but my salary has not.
> Migrate from gas appliances (range, furnace, water heater) to electric (induction, heat pumps)
I can't afford that either. When I got my home assessed, switching to heat pumps requires replacing all the radiators in my house and extra insulation, etc. My gas boiler does have a built-in electric induction system, but it's only used when the tank is cold.
> If your power grid isn’t clean, add rooftop or balcony solar
I can afford the solar panels, but I can't afford the battery storage, nor the installation, and my area does not allow for an inverter connected to the main grid.
The company I work for used to have a hybrid where 95% was on-prem, but became closer to 90% in the cloud when it became more expensive to do on-prem because of VMware licensing. There are alternatives to VMware, but not officially supported with our hardware configuration, so the switch requires changing all the hardware, which still drives it higher than the cloud. Almost everything we have is cloud agnostic, and for anything that requires resilience, it sits in two different providers.
Now the company is looking at doing further cost savings as the buildings rented for running on-prem are sitting mostly unused, but also the prices of buildings have gone up in recent years, notably too, so we're likely to be saving money moving into the cloud. This is likely to make the cloud transition permanent.
> it's the hundred of thousands of people with no interest in music whatsoever, that will flood the platforms in order to make a quick buck.
Whenever I look at popular artists on streaming platforms, I see 'remixes' where people just slowed down the particular original song and added reverb or some other silly effect to it. I don't think AI existing or not will change the behaviour of people trying to make a quick buck. If they aren't using AI, they'll use a different tool as they did before.
> Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.
> This means the return of violence to that region.
It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.
Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".
While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.
None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.
At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.
Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.
The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.
The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.
> In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
I don't see how? The current EU membership demands CFP, AGP among other things. This is why Greenland is not in the EU and is actually one of the big reasons why Iceland refuses to become a member.
> This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion".
I'm no intellectual, so you can stick your assumptions on my knowledge of etiquette where the sun doesn't shine.
You can see above I'm not being disingenuous. But, after having read your entire post and the previous posts, I believe you genuinely are being disingenuous with me. You have repeatedly addressed an audience instead of me either directly or indirectly. No matter what class you are, that's rude.
> Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal.
> So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that.
I mean, literally didn't go into it because it was already a long comment, who you acknowledged. But.... It's a minimal agreement that does not impose any additional tarifs on the exchange of goods and just requires that each country meets each one's internal standards for sale, no sales tax. Comparatively, the EU despite having a 'free trade deal', is imposing import VAT for protectionism (Iceland does not). Meanwhile, both Chinese citizens and organisations can buy EU goods at lower rates than EU citizens can because they do not impose an import sales tax. Much like how the rest of the world is able to purchase 'excess' (or 'quota') food from the EU cheaper than the EU citizens do.
> it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality.
So, you're going to assume I've left reality because I didn't go out of my way to explain how the Total Allowable Catch works and that basically, they're set without sufficient understanding of the environment which leads to overfishing. Then the UK government, knowing how bad it is, restricts our own people from fishing to save the environment (under their interpretation of TAC) without us actually being in violation of TAC. This is worsened by the fact that roughly half of our local fishing companies are actually owned by foreign companies now, which are some of the same ones that are getting good use of out of the poor TAC policy via other countries. TAC is set by the European Commission, now this might sound confusing because they actually get data from ICES, but what the EC does not have to follow any of ICES recommendations and the only ones who can make proposals is the EC. So if the EC wants to push something through, they can just not propose any better alternatives. EC does the same thing in parliament too and if they want something, they can force it regardless. But, you should know that already, being that you're such a pompous arse towards anyone who holds the 'wrong' view point and you have succeeded in getting under my skin.
> This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault
I have earnestly tried to engage with you, but you have chosen to completely ignore all the issues raised, quickly dismiss arguments by any convenient means possible, including, complaining about not flooding a post with a bunch of links, because you posted a single link that didn't actually show the cost of membership.
> Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU.
Greenland is a self autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and it isn't part of Denmark for trade purposes in the EU, it's heritage is older than the EU...
> Again, facts bro!
Since you want to address an audience, I will do the same.
There is a reason why us in the working class won't engage with middle class/university people/intellectuals (regardless if brexiteer or remainer), they dance around us like we're trash and try to slip us up on petty etiquette instead of actual engagement. They twist everything we say through manipulation as being too ‘simple’ to understand, simply because we don’t have the right articulation and they genuinely don’t really care about our issues, I don’t know what their motives are. We are just disposable subhumans to them, emotional punching bags that they can blame.
Regardless of why I think the EU is bad, I’m certain people voted brexit in a majority, it was because they were massively unhappy, it wasn’t a protest, it was just an attempt to change things for the better, because they are not good right now. Both the EU and UK government failed their citizens. They should have done a better job and unfortunately, remainers are so stuck that on the idea the EU is great, they refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact. What’s worse is that I tried to demonstrate this in my posts and you can see the complete blindness to it, the utter refusal to acknowledge anything could be wrong.
I genuinely hope we can get rid of VAT once we leave the EU as it won't be mandated anymore, but that's wishful thinking on my part. We're probably too dependent on it now. :(
> The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world.
When people immigrate, we don't judge people by their skills, their criminality in the EU, just their geographic nationality. It's one rule for EU and a different rule for everyone else. We could have the same immigration policy for everyone instead of this racism/bigotry.
> To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.
The only reason you say that is because the EU's policy is considered to be unsustainable, I'm for equality.
> That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.
EFTA is European, but not EU, not a half-in option with the EU, and I also agree, it could definately be an option.
> Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine
Are you trying to say that us having an alternative deal, much like when Ukraine moved to change its' existing one would cause a war and partial occupation as happened with the Russo-Ukrainian war due to the EU? If you aren't familar, I'd highly recommend reading: https://www.worldcat.org/title/ukrainian-crisis-the-role-of-...
> This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".
I'm opening myself up to discussion, you are the one dismissing it.
> The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world.
Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.
The problem you're not perceiving is a bad deal is a bad deal. For example, the UK has had 50 years of common fisheries policy issues (and note there are many others with the AGP, EEP etc.) and the EU won't fix those, they were so bad that Greenland left it shortly after formation. It led to the destruction of some fishing waters through overfishing and destroying fishing towns and industries across the UK. Now, this is not necessarily the worst, because the benefits may outweigh the losses, right?
The way the CFP arrangement was made is that it requires an unanimous agreement from all countries involved, it is not a majority vote. Unfortunately, no agreement is made because there are parties to the deal who distinctly benefit from the particular rules. This is being confused further as the parts that have flexibility involve the budget and maritime fund, which give the illusion that change actually occurs in these arrangements, they do not. As a fisherman forced out of fishing, this impacts me greatly.
Overall, the EU has been responsible for amplifying economic depressions in the EU, the poor monetary policy in Europe as well. It is hard to forget when the ERM was imposed on the UK because it kept the pound, it is hard to forget the terrible mismanagement of Greece, which the EU government knew ahead of time was a problem and ignored procedures. Then, because they couldn't trust the Greeks, put in foreign banks to manage the money that was 'given' to the Greeks. Of course, the money was mismanaged by the banks and then the Greeks were blamed, while the unaccountable Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commision (which overrode parliamentary decisions in the EU when it came to monetary policies and also is the exclusive organisation to propose new legislation in parliament) now works for Goldman Sachs which for some reason, was able to profit immensely from the decisions made on Greece? It made the EU poorer.
Normally when a country’s economy is overvalued, their currency value is decreased through controlled printing of money, this in turn makes the country cheaper on international markets for services and products and leads to more income during a downtime that allows a country to recover. The EU denied Greece this option. The EU was further meant to protect the EU from entities like China gaining economic control, however, guess who bought a port and expanded it to be the largest shipping port in the EU. In doing so, their economic investment is the primary reason why Greece is in a better position now than before. Now Greece is defending Chinese interests in the EU parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that the EU failed in it’s protectionism and its ability to negotiate or manage economic trade.
I don't expect most people of Britain to have even researched this far, they are unhappy because both the EU and the UK government have failed them and that has lead to wide-spread unhappiness, which is what led to the vote.
> And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal?
The EU prevents the creation of any alternative trade deals with other countries that do not go through it, you do not see that in other trade deals typically. Other trade deals are typically setting the standards of trade between the two entities and not preventing trade with everyone else by removing the abiltiy to create trade deals. That is the difference when it comes to these trade deals. There are exceptions of course.
> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 100 countries with EU trade deals.
Indeed, and it’s unfortunate, but the cost for them is too high. On a positive outlook, we can view this as an opportunity to gain access to the rest of the world. Are you trying to suggest that we would do worse than island nations like Iceland or Greenland? Because, I think they are fine places and I think we could do better.
> More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?"
I’m honoured you think my idle question was a slogan, I’m still willing to listen and discuss.
> and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?
I have explained some of the issues above and the reality is not so clear cut like you make it out to be.
> You can't argue with them. They're all suffering a group hallucination...
What's better, the EU or rest of world?
When you look at GDP growth, markets, trade... Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism. The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter, but it turns out, that the EU in seemingly every comparison always comes short compared to the rest of the world.