Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

I was under the impression a frame towing Was essentially illegal in most cases with small allowances for emergencies.

I'm all for trailer registration, especially if they get their own plates.
I wonder if there will be any checks for roadworthiness? That's my bigger concern based on some of the wrecks I've seen and used.

Here in Luxembourg (I think similar to other European countries close by who I see trailers with their own plates) all trailers have to be registered and also have to have an MOT type test.
It keeps most of the dangerous stuff off the road.

The Luxembourg police will stop any unplated trailer they see.

gfplux

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not linked to Brexit, so apologies.

I do worry about the quality of debate going forward with the relentless march towards paywalls. We lost real access to the Times and FT a while back, the Telegraph has now all but gone though the Guardian hangs in there.

This is totally fair on the part of the newspapers who haemorrhage money to content aggregators and reflects the industry disruption that they face. But it will be awful if the only online content readily available is from the tabloids.

Yes off topic, but.

I agree. However I will not pay for access to News, I am old and fixed in my ways. So I get the news I deserve.

wunferall

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not linked to Brexit, so apologies.

I do worry about the quality of debate going forward with the relentless march towards paywalls. We lost real access to the Times and FT a while back, the Telegraph has now all but gone though the Guardian hangs in there.

This is totally fair on the part of the newspapers who haemorrhage money to content aggregators and reflects the industry disruption that they face. But it will be awful if the only online content readily available is from the tabloids.

Also off-topic in order to respond.


I agree completely.
News has traditionally been paid-for for centuries; it's only with the rise of the internet that instant news has become a possibility. The accuracy and validity of much of this news is what so many find disconcerting.

The publications you mention are doing no more than making (IMHO) a last-ditch attempt to retain the respect and validity they once commanded which - of course - requires money to maintain a certain standard of journalism.
It might not be fair and I completely agree and realistically, what choice do they really have other than to keep content paywalled?

Complaining about the accuracy and validity of any UK online media news is perhaps more than a little unfair when so much of the older (previously?) paper-based publications are in the ownership of conglomerates who publish a number of titles.

The Times for example is owned by Murdoch.
The Guardian in published by Trinity Mirror who, as we know, owns the Express and Mirror as well as publishing the Observer.

Decrying one of the titles as being in some way less-worthy than another across the board is then questionable, just one example being that the Express were the only UK mainstream media to cover the first Deloitte report showing the possibility of damage that would be done to the German car industry because of Brexit.

You're right though and it would indeed be awful should we reach the point where the only online content to be readily available be tabloids.
If only because some forum members would have no valid argument regarding said content and/or the use of paywalled content.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Yes off topic, but.

I agree. However I will not pay for access to News, I am old and fixed in my ways. So I get the news I deserve.

So will the EU's introduction of Mifid II. Everyone understands the neccessity to regulate investments properly. However comes at a cost to consumers. Biggest loss will the availability of quality research which will only be provided on a paid for basis. Putting mere mortals at a disadvantage with no access to same.

Filo25

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not linked to Brexit, so apologies.

I do worry about the quality of debate going forward with the relentless march towards paywalls. We lost real access to the Times and FT a while back, the Telegraph has now all but gone though the Guardian hangs in there.

This is totally fair on the part of the newspapers who haemorrhage money to content aggregators and reflects the industry disruption that they face. But it will be awful if the only online content readily available is from the tabloids.

On a sidenote to this (it is no help to posting links) but if you see a piece of news you are interested in on the FT's site, and search for the title of the piece on google you can normally click through from there to read it.

LHW99

On a sidenote to this (it is no help to posting links) but if you see a piece of news you are interested in on the FT's site, and search for the title of the piece on google you can normally click through from there to read it.

and if not from a direct click, using the "cached version" can work.

vivatifosi

wunferall wrote: »

Decrying one of the titles as being in some way less-worthy than another across the board is then questionable, just one example being that the Express were the only UK mainstream media to cover the first Deloitte report showing the possibility of damage that would be done to the German car industry because of Brexit.

That's a fair point. I don't like the Express and don't read it, but appreciate that it will run stories of interest and away from its bread and butter fare of Diana, health and the weather that I might want to read.

I don't like the Mail much either, but I really appreciate how it went out on a limb to try to bring Stephen Lawrence's killers to justice. Similarly I love the Times, it is my paper of choice, but they get it wrong sometimes too (whispers Hitler Diaries).

It would just be a shame if tabloids were all that we accessed.

wunferall

It's a Saturday so I suppose we could reasonably expect news related to Brexit to be in short supply.
There are however two noteworthy exceptions.
Here's the first:

Theresa May rules out a second Brexit referendum and explains that the UK will not accept the EU's free movement of people or ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit, and why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxPqwMcSNQ

Related to this (if you find & watch the complete video, not the short version I post) Theresa may today (Saturday) asked for a new security pact with the EU from next year which, it is said, has support from both EU and USA officials.

In a speech to Western leaders and officials in Munich, May promised that London would continue to lead military missions and share intelligence if Brussels agreed to a pact “effective from 2019”, the year Britain is due to leave the bloc.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-security/may-wins-backing-for-eu-security-pact-timing-unclear-idUKKCN1G10AG

wunferall

The second is this:

The SPD must vote on the planned coalition before it can be implemented; postal voting begins February 20th.
According to the latest polls, support for the SPD has dropped to its lowest ever, putting the SPD just 1% above AfD. Despite positivity amongst some senior SPD members that the vote will agree the coalition, the increasing dissatisfaction with their party at a time when another coalition is planned could well sway enough to reject Merkel's coalition, fearing that it could be a long time before the SPD achieve public support again if they do.

The SPD has slid further into disarray since its leaders struck the coalition deal, blighted by bitter divisions over whether to team up again with Merkel, a loss of confidence in outgoing leader Martin Schulz and discontent over the succession process.

“The past days were very difficult, that is true, and that is reflected in such numbers,” said Nahles. “But I am very hopeful we can that we can now start moving forward.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-politics/as-support-falls-german-spd-sees-no-plan-b-to-merkel-coalition-idUKKCN1G10FY?il=0

She wants to pray that they do because there is "no plan B" - meaning another election.
One in which (at this rate) the AfD may well achieve second place, if not even more.

Before I see shouts of "Why is that relevant?" read the below to get some inkling.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/trans-europe-express-merkel-cant-reform-the-eu-alone/

Moby

cogito wrote: »

Or the Guardian or the Indy.

When I went to my college library I could read the Guardian or Times. The Express was not available there. Despite what people think now to justify their views over issues such as Brexit or Trump, quality and expertise does matter; one 'opinion' is not as good as another; One source is simply not as good as another.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

In the modern West, anti-intellectualism tends to be associated with the political right, such as the reactionary wing of the United States Republican Party, UKIP, the Coalition under Tony Abbott or some members of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada.

These anti-intellectual political movements are very rarely violent, but always stupid. Instead they prefer to use the word "intellectual" as a snarl word or paint intellectuals and academics as "know-it-all liberals" or "elitists".

Rags such as the Mail, Sun, Express are the mouthpiece of this anti-intellectualism.
Murdoch, Dacre, Rothermere, Desmond etc are archetypal populist right wing bigots whose objective is to sell papers to make money through creating strife, division between the human tribes. Immigration, race, the EU, welfare scroungers, socialists, liberal judges etc are all used as populist folk devil bait to draw in the naive and ignorant. Why does this matter? The tribalism brought about by Trumpism and UKIP is becoming very divisive and damaging and ultimately the only way the human species can survive is by reaching out across these divides. Nationalism, patriotism are values which have had their day and they represent a tribal mentality which is ultimately destructive to social cohesion.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518440784&sr=8-1&keywords=the+death+of+expertise


On another aspect. It's time for Labour to stop sitting on the fence and decide what a jobs first Brexit actually means!:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/neil-kinnock-jeremy-corbyn-labour-stop-brexit-save-nhs

Speaking to the Observer, Kinnock said he had been angered by claims from Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, that the NHS should benefit from the money saved by leaving the European Union. He said the reality was that we should stop Brexit to save the NHS or at the very least mitigate the damage by staying within the single market.

Even contempt for experts cannot obscure the evidence that the Johnson-led Brexit vote has already damaged and will inflict future harm on the NHS Kinnock said.Meanwhile vitally - Brexit has already diminished, and will continue to depress, the revenues on which the NHS depends.

If Johnson really wanted the extra NHS spending, which is sorely needed, he wouldnt be using the issue as a ploy to feed his lust for the Tory leadership but would be working to end Brexit.

The truth is that we can either take the increasingly plain risks and costs of leaving the EU or have the stability, growth and revenues vital for crucial public services like the NHS and social care. Recognising that, we should stop Brexit to save the NHS or, at very least, mitigate the damage by seeking European Economic Area membership