|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On August 02 2019 19:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The guardian ran an article a few days ago bemoaning Brexits impact on the car industry, with investment and jobs at stake.Yet last October they ran an article quoting the UN claiming we have 12 years to stop cataclysmic climate emergency.
I have this vision of the people protesting about climate emergency with 12 years to save the planet also protesting about how brexit will lower Britain’s GDP over 20 years compared to remaining or that Britain will produce 100,000 fewer cars per year in a Brexit scenario.Newsflash if there’s a climate emergency maybe lower consumption is good?
Every year it becomes easier to call out these virtue signallers.
Somewhat off-topic, but does "virtue signaler" have an antonym?
|
the antonym is anti-virtue signaler, because even not signalling is signalling
|
On August 02 2019 19:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The guardian ran an article a few days ago bemoaning Brexits impact on the car industry, with investment and jobs at stake.Yet last October they ran an article quoting the UN claiming we have 12 years to stop cataclysmic climate emergency.
I have this vision of the people protesting about climate emergency with 12 years to save the planet also protesting about how brexit will lower Britain’s GDP over 20 years compared to remaining or that Britain will produce 100,000 fewer cars per year in a Brexit scenario.Newsflash if there’s a climate emergency maybe lower consumption is good?
Every year it becomes easier to call out these virtue signallers. Ignoring various crazy notions you have, what does bemoaning the loss of car industry and the effects on the economy due to politics got to do with lowering consumption? The cars will still be made, just not in UK.
|
Australia4427 Posts
On August 02 2019 19:14 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 19:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The guardian ran an article a few days ago bemoaning Brexits impact on the car industry, with investment and jobs at stake.Yet last October they ran an article quoting the UN claiming we have 12 years to stop cataclysmic climate emergency.
I have this vision of the people protesting about climate emergency with 12 years to save the planet also protesting about how brexit will lower Britain’s GDP over 20 years compared to remaining or that Britain will produce 100,000 fewer cars per year in a Brexit scenario.Newsflash if there’s a climate emergency maybe lower consumption is good?
Every year it becomes easier to call out these virtue signallers. loL? Both are acute problems that arn't adressed? They are related but not mutually exclusive. Also they ran an article that states science's position, that the next 18 months are crucial in setting up the foundation for hitting the 2050 targets. And neither is virtue signalling. You're using a phrase that is not apliccable here. And it might have evaded you, there are people contributing to the guardian that hold differing views on various matters, so you might find 2 articles / opinion pieces / commentary that actually purport the opposite.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target
“Worlds leading climate scientists” say we have 12 years to avoid catastrophic climate change.Pretty sure such a drastic move would require a curtailing of private vehicles.
1.The climate change article was not an opinion piece it was quotes from UN scientists.
2.Guardian is universally anti-Brexit.So saying some authors have differing opinions is meaningless here talking about Brexit.
If the guardian and it’s readership could just see that we cannot keep the current economic system and reduce emissions enough in a decade to keep UN scientists happy we’d be making progress.Seriously Chinese emissions are up 53% the past decade.Just wake up and smell the coffee.
Don’t post articles complaining about potential car manufacturing job losses when you’re also saying we’ve got 12 years to save the planet.
|
Lol I actually agree with nettles here. I think its the first time.
Brexit is a meaningless distraction compared to the changes needed for to halt climate change. Brexit should be in the news much less, and environmental breakdown should be the priority.
There's only so much outrage to go around, focusing half of it on brexit at this point is dumb.
Not that virtue signalling has anything to do with it, its just a failure of prioritizing important information.
|
Australia4427 Posts
I am in the UK now for a wedding.Near Glasgow.Funny Enough my cousin at the wedding is from Brecon in Wales so I have been following things a little closer.
My opinion good result for Johnson.Good for Lib Dem.Poor result from Labour, the candidate barely got his deposit back, fourth behind Brexit party.
Conservatives would easily win majority govt if election held now.
|
On August 03 2019 07:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 19:14 Artisreal wrote:On August 02 2019 19:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The guardian ran an article a few days ago bemoaning Brexits impact on the car industry, with investment and jobs at stake.Yet last October they ran an article quoting the UN claiming we have 12 years to stop cataclysmic climate emergency.
I have this vision of the people protesting about climate emergency with 12 years to save the planet also protesting about how brexit will lower Britain’s GDP over 20 years compared to remaining or that Britain will produce 100,000 fewer cars per year in a Brexit scenario.Newsflash if there’s a climate emergency maybe lower consumption is good?
Every year it becomes easier to call out these virtue signallers. loL? Both are acute problems that arn't adressed? They are related but not mutually exclusive. Also they ran an article that states science's position, that the next 18 months are crucial in setting up the foundation for hitting the 2050 targets. And neither is virtue signalling. You're using a phrase that is not apliccable here. And it might have evaded you, there are people contributing to the guardian that hold differing views on various matters, so you might find 2 articles / opinion pieces / commentary that actually purport the opposite. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-reportShow nested quote +The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target “Worlds leading climate scientists” say we have 12 years to avoid catastrophic climate change.Pretty sure such a drastic move would require a curtailing of private vehicles. 1.The climate change article was not an opinion piece it was quotes from UN scientists. 2.Guardian is universally anti-Brexit.So saying some authors have differing opinions is meaningless here talking about Brexit. If the guardian and it’s readership could just see that we cannot keep the current economic system and reduce emissions enough in a decade to keep UN scientists happy we’d be making progress.Seriously Chinese emissions are up 53% the past decade.Just wake up and smell the coffee. Don’t post articles complaining about potential car manufacturing job losses when you’re also saying we’ve got 12 years to save the planet.
my bad, it was the BBC with the 18 months.
But that's besides the point anyhow.
It's ludicrous to assume that the guardian's journalistic efforts are in any shape or form diminished because you feel you found a gotcha instance where two articles seemingly contradict each other. thats bonkers.
The point stands that Brexit can immensely affect people's lives in the short term. That BMW would swith from cars to busses or from combustion engines to hydrogen or electric as soon as they smell moneys is entirely out of the question. But those are exactly the challenges ignored by politics and populace for a while.
In no shape or form is this related to Brexit though.
|
Northern Ireland27200 Posts
On August 03 2019 07:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
Lol I actually agree with nettles here. I think its the first time.
Brexit is a meaningless distraction compared to the changes needed for to halt climate change. Brexit should be in the news much less, and environmental breakdown should be the priority.
There's only so much outrage to go around, focusing half of it on brexit at this point is dumb.
Not that virtue signalling has anything to do with it, its just a failure of prioritizing important information.
But the Guardian prioritises it more than most outlets as an issue
The EU for all its flaws is more stringent on environmental standards than other comparable economic areas, be it the US or China
I agree it should be the priority, but it’s not. As it pertains to climate change on how things are working out currently the best shot we have to push things along is the EU being too large an economic bloc with its standards for others not to adhere to, and at least accept those standards and move along there.
A potentially untethered UK desperate for trade and to offset other losses by potentially dropping what insufficient standards we already have is just another blow to the environmental cause.
|
Halting Brexit, or at least stop a no deal one, is probably the single most important decision the UK could make right now to combat climate change. Wombat already mentioned the importance of the EU being a powerful bloc, but it's also easier to make expensive and tough decisions when your economy isn't crashing.
|
On August 03 2019 01:52 IgnE wrote:
the antonym is anti-virtue signaler, because even not signalling is signalling
Anti-virtue is sin, right? So sin signaler.
Or, because it's composed of two parts, you might want "virtue observer", or even "sin observer"?
|
On August 03 2019 05:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 19:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The guardian ran an article a few days ago bemoaning Brexits impact on the car industry, with investment and jobs at stake.Yet last October they ran an article quoting the UN claiming we have 12 years to stop cataclysmic climate emergency.
I have this vision of the people protesting about climate emergency with 12 years to save the planet also protesting about how brexit will lower Britain’s GDP over 20 years compared to remaining or that Britain will produce 100,000 fewer cars per year in a Brexit scenario.Newsflash if there’s a climate emergency maybe lower consumption is good?
Every year it becomes easier to call out these virtue signallers. Ignoring various crazy notions you have, what does bemoaning the loss of car industry and the effects on the economy due to politics got to do with lowering consumption? The cars will still be made, just not in UK.
Stop using logic. Don't you know that's cheating? You're supposed to just swallow the false dichotomy wholesale and get outraged. ROOOOAAAAAR! Guardian so bad.
|
"Cummings is said to have told advisers that Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election – to be held after Britain had left the EU."
Still Cummings:
“The most simple thing is the prime minister believes that politicians don’t get to choose which votes they respect, that’s the critical issue”
How it is possible that in 21st century in democratic country someone like that have such amount of power??
|
Cummings is an unelected bureaucrat, right? And Johnson was elected as a MP, not a PM. The second PM in a row that wasn't elected.
Still, the UK is 100% concerned with internal party politics. They were given an extension to make a decision; remain or leave with the May-Barnier agreement and possibly a different political deceleration. In fact, the extension has as a requirement that there will be no more negotiations. The UK agreed not to ask for new negotiations. Yet they are still doing so.
It must be their strategy to get HoC to oppose the Johnson's government and revoke article 50 to prevent a no deal Brexit. And then Johnson will campaign on that issue and he won't have to fear Brexit party because 'he did nothing wrong'. And he won't have to fear Labour, because Corbyn. And my guess is the UK voters will fall for it and then Johnson after having campaigned or a second Brexit attempt will just forget about it and do what he feels like doing.
|
On August 03 2019 17:11 Longshank wrote:
Halting Brexit, or at least stop a no deal one, is probably the single most important decision the UK could make right now to combat climate change. Wombat already mentioned the importance of the EU being a powerful bloc, but it's also easier to make expensive and tough decisions when your economy isn't crashing.
How's that working for France? They couldn't even tolerate a hike in the gas tax and you think significantly altering the economy to lower standard of living to "save the environment" is going to be palatable? Do you guys live in the same world as I do? Marie Antoinette climate doomsayers are the best - people like Matt Damon.
|
On August 08 2019 16:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2019 17:11 Longshank wrote:
Halting Brexit, or at least stop a no deal one, is probably the single most important decision the UK could make right now to combat climate change. Wombat already mentioned the importance of the EU being a powerful bloc, but it's also easier to make expensive and tough decisions when your economy isn't crashing. How's that working for France? They couldn't even tolerate a hike in the gas tax and you think significantly altering the economy to lower standard of living to "save the environment" is going to be palatable? Do you guys live in the same world as I do? Marie Antoinette climate doomsayers are the best - people like Matt Damon.
Yeah I hate those people that won't talk shut up about brakes when you're trying to drive off a cliff. Its so depressing. Just, like, shut up already.
|
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences?
|
On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences?
If you don't put in place some kind of agreement, there would be no imports or exports at all. All goods would be stopped at the border, both in and out. So no, "just ignore EU and pretend it's their problem" isn't going to work unless you plan on developing your nation off of smuggling.
|
But there is no border in Ireland. Somebody would have to install it there first.
|
On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences?
Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power.
A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast 
|
Northern Ireland27200 Posts
On August 09 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences? Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power. A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast
Damn Lampedusans taking my job 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
