FlyTheNest

I have an awful sense of foreboding about this Rio Olympics lark. Don't know why. Don't know what.

And what's the evidence (sorry - lazy) that there is ever any long-term economic benefit to the host nation and its citizens?

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:I try to explain here why it would be very foolish indeed to invoke article 50 straightaway, even if like Corbyn you are for Brexit

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... e-invoked/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed you do...it is your opinion and I disagree with it

I will not call you incompetent or stupid for it though...I just think there are flaws

1. You can't conclude the negotiations in 2 years. It is simply impossible.

2. Invoking Art 50 would destroy the UK's negotiating position.

Which is why nobody is now calling for it (save for the Ukip fringe).

Corbyn's true attitude was revealed on the morning of the 24th, which is why he is now denying saying what he did.

Is there a case that Article 50 isn't fit for purpose, in it's current form?

tinyclanger2 wrote:frikandel.

Isn't that some sort of German rissole or burger?

tinybgoat wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote: Indeed you do...it is your opinion and I disagree with it

I will not call you incompetent or stupid for it though...I just think there are flaws

1. You can't conclude the negotiations in 2 years. It is simply impossible.

2. Invoking Art 50 would destroy the UK's negotiating position.

Which is why nobody is now calling for it (save for the Ukip fringe).

Corbyn's true attitude was revealed on the morning of the 24th, which is why he is now denying saying what he did.

Is there a case that Article 50 isn't fit for purpose, in it's current form?

Well, I believe it was drawn up in the expectation that no-one would ever use it so I'm not persuaded that the authors necessarily gave it their "all".




Edited - typo
(Paris in the
the Spring syndrome)

fedup59 wrote:Evening all

Straight question - did anybody, at any time before the EU ref, suggest that the vote could be ignored?

Will have to try and find something to back this up,
but from memory, yes - although maybe it was more, get round by interpretation/manipulation than just ignore.

PorFavor wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:frikandel.

Isn't that some sort of German rissole or burger?

I thought it were Dutch for munchies.

tinybgoat wrote:Is there a case that Article 50 isn't fit for purpose, in it's current form?

(cJA edit)
Good question - I don't think what I've found below is proof Article 50 isn't fit for purpose but I thought it interesting.

Giuliano Amato, a former prime minister of Italy, who later worked with the European Commission, helped draft
the European Constitution, which became the Lisbon Treaty. He said he had written the now infamous Article 50
but that it was largely for show.

“I wrote Article 50, so I know it well,” Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, according to Reuters. He told the
meeting he had specifically inserted the article to prevent the British government complaining there was no
way for them to leave the bloc.

“My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having
a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.”

Mr Amato went on to describe Brexit as a "disaster", called David Cameron "mad" for calling a
referendum over it and urged other countries not to follow suit.

- Brexit: Article 50 was never actually meant to be used, says its author
Giuliano Amato said the clause had specifically been inserted to placate the British
26 July 2016

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 56656.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKCN1012Q8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RobertSnozers wrote:By the way, I thought FTNers might be interested in my photos of the antifascist demo in Southampton a couple of months ago. One of the few things to have made me feel a bit better about the state of humanity recently

https://www.flickr.com/photos/135004112 ... 1202202951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Camera - 1958 Kiev 3A rangefinder (licence built Soviet version of Zeiss Contax III)
Lens - 50mm Jupiter 8 (licence built Soviet version of Zeiss Sonnar 50mm)
Film - out of date Fuji Superia 200

This was my first attempt at street photography of any kind. I had heard that the 50mm lens was THE lens for street photography but I found myself wanting something wider, and as you can see, I cut off a lot of the tops of signs and banners, and the odd person's head. Lucky the police and medics were there

A lot of people knock old soviet cameras and lenses, but you have brought out the best..in a camera as old as I am, I doubt you would get that from many of that era. Bloody well done I`d say:)

Men stage child custody protest on Jeremy Corbyn's roof

New Fathers for Justice demonstrators say they targeted Labour leader’s Islington roof because he was ‘rude’ about their cause

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... or-justice

In the accompanying photo' there's a banner carrying the words: THERESA MAY "TAKE IT IN THE FACE". What's that meant to mean? (genuine question)




Edited - typo

utopiandreams wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:frikandel.

Isn't that some sort of German rissole or burger?

I thought it were Dutch for munchies.

Rapunzel's less hirstute brother, springs to mind
-not quite sure why.

1. Frikandel are Belgian or Dutch versions of Frikandellen which are German meatballs or rissoles.

2. Thank you for the photos, Robert. You're really rather good, aren't you?

3. Don't be rude, people.

4. This forum is not supposed to be an advertising site for someones' blog. Stop it.

5. Corbyn - for the umpteenth time - voted Remain and is NOT "for Brexit". So stop that too.

6. The cricket was good.

7. I will not be staying up to watch the Rio opening ceremony. I'm too tired.

8. Thank you.

ephemerid wrote:1. Frikandel are Belgian or Dutch versions of Frikandellen which are German meatballs or rissoles.

2. Thank you for the photos, Robert. You're really rather good, aren't you?

3. Don't be rude, people.

4. This forum is not supposed to be an advertising site for someones' blog. Stop it.

5. Corbyn - for the umpteenth time - voted Remain and is NOT "for Brexit". So stop that too.

6. The cricket was good.

7. I will not be staying up to watch the Rio opening ceremony. I'm too tired.

8. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I shan't be watching it, either.

I am not going to answer your question about the banner, PorFavor, and humbly suggest that you don't Google it. Let me just say that I think it in extremely poor taste.

utopiandreams wrote:I am not going to answer your question about the banner, PorFavor, and humbly suggest that you don't Google it. Let me just say that I think it in extremely poor taste.

Oh. Right. Thanks for the warning.

PorFavor wrote:I have an awful sense of foreboding about this Rio Olympics lark. Don't know why. Don't know what.

And what's the evidence (sorry - lazy) that there is ever any long-term economic benefit to the host nation and its citizens?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is strikingly little evidence that such events increase tourism or draw new investment. Spending lavishly on a short-lived event is, economically speaking, a dubious long-term strategy.

thatchersorphan wrote:

PorFavor wrote:I have an awful sense of foreboding about this Rio Olympics lark. Don't know why. Don't know what.

And what's the evidence (sorry - lazy) that there is ever any long-term economic benefit to the host nation and its citizens?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is strikingly little evidence that such events increase tourism or draw new investment. Spending lavishly on a short-lived event is, economically speaking, a dubious long-term strategy.

Thank you. I thought as much.

Deleted

HindleA wrote:Another view


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... brazilians" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Criticising the Games has become an Olympic sport. But they’re a win for Rio
Carlos Nuzman

Thanks for the link but -

He would say that, wouldn't he?

Carlos Nuzman is the president of the Rio Olympics 2016 organising committee

Deleted

RobertSnozers wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote: Indeed you do...it is your opinion and I disagree with it

I will not call you incompetent or stupid for it though...I just think there are flaws

1. You can't conclude the negotiations in 2 years. It is simply impossible.

2. Invoking Art 50 would destroy the UK's negotiating position.

Which is why nobody is now calling for it (save for the Ukip fringe).

Corbyn's true attitude was revealed on the morning of the 24th, which is why he is now denying saying what he did.

1. You cannot start negotiating until you have invoked Article 50. The only thing that has to be concluded in that time is the disengagement. The post-Brexit settlement can only start being negotiated after the two years.

2. Everyone knows we are going to invoke it so they can start preparing their positions at their leisure.

Cameron said he wasn't going to invoke it. Did that reveal his true attitude?

Nothing legally preventing negotiations now.

Cameron was lying.

Another prominent politician lied yesterday.

Politicians lie all the time. Only a problem if your trademark is "straight talking honest politics" or some such.

I could of course paste lengthy explanations on to this message board. I am sure most would consider that (even) worse.

PorFavor wrote:I have an awful sense of foreboding about this Rio Olympics lark. Don't know why. Don't know what.

And what's the evidence (sorry - lazy) that there is ever any long-term economic benefit to the host nation and its citizens?

There was a lot of negativity surrounding London 2012.

As it turned out, it was a brilliantvtriumph.

This, and discussion BTL interesting I think

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... n.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:I have an awful sense of foreboding about this Rio Olympics lark. Don't know why. Don't know what.

And what's the evidence (sorry - lazy) that there is ever any long-term economic benefit to the host nation and its citizens?

There was a lot of negativity surrounding London 2012.

As it turned out, it was a brilliantvtriumph.

In presentational terms - but long-term economic benefit?

Deleted

True. Worth every penny. But still - no long-term benefits, unfortunately. And he's in line for ennoblement or something. I bet David Cameron is pissed off that he didn't arrange things so that he could nominate himself. Still, next time, doubtless.


Edited - typo

Apologies, I've only made it to bottom of page 2 of the comments so I may have missed more of this so far, but wanted to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone's comments re: perceptions of Churchill and to yahyah for prompting the debate.

I first heard of Tonypandy less than a year ago and, with hindsight, it's quite astonishing how much of Churchill's history was whitewashed away in my 70s and 80s education.

I can't say now that it surprises me too much that the written by the middle and upper classes history has airbrushed so much away. I wonder how much of the largely oral (only) history of the working classes has decayed through lack of record or has been 'discredited' by such revisionism. It's one of the many benefits that technology today does have that the past didn't - the ability to not only write from all perspectives but to make sure it is recorded and archived too. Which is why the near as damn democratic nature of the Internet is so terrifying to so many in power.

Edit: the bleedin' awful grammar wot I could see expunged.

Sport, like love and art, isn't about its economic benefit.

Politics cannot be reduced to the sad utilitarian calculus of the economist.

SpinningHugo wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: 1. You can't conclude the negotiations in 2 years. It is simply impossible.

2. Invoking Art 50 would destroy the UK's negotiating position.

Which is why nobody is now calling for it (save for the Ukip fringe).

Corbyn's true attitude was revealed on the morning of the 24th, which is why he is now denying saying what he did.

1. You cannot start negotiating until you have invoked Article 50. The only thing that has to be concluded in that time is the disengagement. The post-Brexit settlement can only start being negotiated after the two years.

2. Everyone knows we are going to invoke it so they can start preparing their positions at their leisure.

Cameron said he wasn't going to invoke it. Did that reveal his true attitude?

Nothing legally preventing negotiations now.

Cameron was lying.

Another prominent politician lied yesterday.

Politicians lie all the time. Only a problem if your trademark is "straight talking honest politics" or some such.

I could of course paste lengthy explanations on to this message board. I am sure most would consider that (even) worse.

There is nothing legally stopping them discussing exit apart from trade which they cannot do until we have left.

You make the assumption that the EU is lying when they say no substantial negotiation before we invoke A50....I assume that if you think otherwise then you will have some evidence

There is no evidence either that the British Government has any clue at all about what they are doing....Davis, Fox and Johnson are supposed to be the ones involved and, as well as being pretty unlikeable, their pronouncements have suggested they have little understanding of what they want to do

A50 should have been invoked by now but May has said it will be in early 2017...if that deadline passes then we will have the ridiculous situation of having EU elections in May 2019......I have no confidence that we will be in any better 'negotiating position' then than we are now

I agree negotiations will take longer than two years - I have said so before, and my view is that we will need to get a unanimous agreement to extend the deadline....and that will be difficult to justify seeing we waited as long as we could to tell them we were leaving

Now, I may be wrong as I do not claim to be all-knowing but I have read the articles claiming we can either not invoke A50 or can wait indefinitely

I do not find them convincing to be honest so will hold my position until I see something that does convince

This is spoken as someone who does not want to Leave the EU, in fact my current residence is based on being an EU citizen so I have a personal stake in this. Pretending it will not happen though will not change that

I also would like to apologise for my words in my post to Lost Soul - unnecessary - but the sentiment that goes behind them stays. I found his post unnecessary and I reacted to it....childish on my part but not much better on his/hers

I am tired of it being insinuated I am a cultist because I don't think Owen Smith is a capable leader. I am not overly impressed with Corbyn either but the manner of the challenge has made me angry and I find it completely unacceptable. Also, the accusations being thrown at him personally, including the insinuation that he is a racist, are also unacceptable for me

Then we have some people who voted remain who seem to believe that by insulting anyone who has a different point of view that the decision will change. I have yet to see any coherent argument that will morally prevent our leaving the EU. Yes, Parliament could block it, yes the Lords could block it...even the Queen could block it but the unwise decision to have a referendum left this as a potential scenario

The discussion over A50 is complex...it is a poorly worded clause and is ambiguous.....but I have set out my arguments as to why I think it should be invoked now. There have been some insulting posts from people who believe differently...mainly focused on abuse against the leader of the party, and by proxy on those who have more sympathy with his decision

I am sorry to have been party to some unpleasant comments on here today but I would also say some people who try to take the moral high ground and criticise others should be very careful when doing so...

Deleted

Howsillyofme

My claim was a* legal* one there is nothing legally stopping any negotiations about anything at all.

Which institution of the EU ate you referring to? Far from other states and the commission "lying" I think they are telling the truth. See what I say in.my blog.

Where has May said "by early 2017". She hasn't as far as I know.

I don't think art 50 is at all ambiguous. What do you think.k compels the UK to invoke it?

I am not sure you mean "insinuate"

SpinningHugo wrote:Howsillyofme

My claim was a* legal* one there is nothing legally stopping any negotiations about anything at all.

Which institution of the EU ate you referring to? Far from other states and the commission "lying" I think they are telling the truth. See what I say in.my blog.

Where has May said "by early 2017". She hasn't as far as I know.

I don't think art 50 is at all ambiguous. What do you think.k compels the UK to invoke it?

I am not sure you mean "insinuate"

I have told you I don't agree with your blog and I don't want to keep repeating myself and debate with you to be honest so I will refrain from doing so

PS. On the invocation of article 50. Speaking from an academic perspective, the prevarication of shall we shan't we is causing irreparable damage to science. People in the EU don't want to start collaborations with us and the government isn't going to do a goddamned thing to step into the inevitable breach in funding for projects that this is causing. The longer we put off a decision to either refight or revoke the referendum, or invoke article 50 and get on with leaving proper, the more damaging it is going to be for us. This middle ground of pretending we're going to leave but not is utterly dismal for everyone. The lack of clarity is fundamentally damaging to everyone.

Just get the fuck on with it one way or t'other and stop this dicking about.

Edit: science is already losing resident and overseas talent, as well as millions in funding because of this. This government will do fuck all to replace it while we're in this stupid no man's land.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Howsillyofme

My claim was a* legal* one there is nothing legally stopping any negotiations about anything at all.

Which institution of the EU ate you referring to? Far from other states and the commission "lying" I think they are telling the truth. See what I say in.my blog.

Where has May said "by early 2017". She hasn't as far as I know.

I don't think art 50 is at all ambiguous. What do you think.k compels the UK to invoke it?

I am not sure you mean "insinuate"

I have told you I don't agree with your blog and I do,_n't want to keep repeating myself and debate with you to be honest so I will refrain from doing so

Which is fine and entirely up to you but doesn't actually constitute an argument or supporting evidence of your claims.

Deleted

SpinningHugo wrote:Sport, like love and art, isn't about its economic benefit.

Politics cannot be reduced to the sad utilitarian calculus of the economist.

The Olympics is always, these days, "sold" to us in terms of economic value. You could have the sport without all the over the top expense (which isn't spent on the sport but on vanity projects, VIPs etc).

Mind you, no-one would ever accuse me of being a sports fan. Or a utilitarian, for that matter.

PorFavor wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Sport, like love and art, isn't about its economic benefit.

Politics cannot be reduced to the sad utilitarian calculus of the economist.

The Olympics is always, these days, "sold" to us in terms of economic value. You could have the sport without all the over the top expense (which isn't spent on the sport but on vanity projects, VIPs etc).

Mind you, no-one would ever accuse me of being a sports fan. Or a utilitarian, for that matter.

It's also meant to kick-start an interest in sport and encourage people to get healthy. Kind of hard when the Tories cause the closure of sport centres and sell off more playing fields.

Deleted

My by-election review will have to wait for the weekend thread, sorry. Some interesting contests this time round

refitman wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Sport, like love and art, isn't about its economic benefit.

Politics cannot be reduced to the sad utilitarian calculus of the economist.

The Olympics is always, these days, "sold" to us in terms of economic value. You could have the sport without all the over the top expense (which isn't spent on the sport but on vanity projects, VIPs etc).

Mind you, no-one would ever accuse me of being a sports fan. Or a utilitarian, for that matter.

It's also meant to kick-start an interest in sport and encourage people to get healthy. Kind of hard when the Tories cause the closure of sport centres and sell off more playing fields.

To add: people being healthier is an economic benefit. Less days off work leads to increased productivity. Healthier people lead to a reduction in demand on the health service.

Deleted

citizenJA wrote:Inflammatory, derogatory language towards others we're sharing the thread with is off-putting.

whoever it is

refitman wrote:

refitman wrote:

PorFavor wrote:
The Olympics is always, these days, "sold" to us in terms of economic value. You could have the sport without all the over the top expense (which isn't spent on the sport but on vanity projects, VIPs etc).

Mind you, no-one would ever accuse me of being a sports fan. Or a utilitarian, for that matter.

It's also meant to kick-start an interest in sport and encourage people to get healthy. Kind of hard when the Tories cause the closure of sport centres and sell off more playing fields.

To add: people being healthier is an economic benefit. Less days off work leads to increased productivity. Healthier people lead to a reduction in demand on the health service.

Yes - but I return to my original question. Any evidence that any of this happens?

Sorry - very tired so am almost using "telegraphese". Hope it's not coming over as terse and testy.


Edit - typo

am keen to maintain the diversity of contributions that have existed at times here - and the solidarity that goes with it.

(quietly seething emoticon)

I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....
I promise to be nice from now on....

well nicer...'tis all relative

PorFavor wrote:

refitman wrote:

refitman wrote: It's also meant to kick-start an interest in sport and encourage people to get healthy. Kind of hard when the Tories cause the closure of sport centres and sell off more playing fields.

To add: people being healthier is an economic benefit. Less days off work leads to increased productivity. Healthier people lead to a reduction in demand on the health service.

Yes - but I return to my original question. Any evidence that any of this happens?

Sorry - very tired so am almost using "telegraphese". Hope it's not coming over as terse and testy.


Edit - typo

I believe there was a boost after the last Tour de France and there was an increase after the London Games, until the Coalition cut it off at the knees.

In overall cash terms, it is usually detrimental to the host country (not least due to the tax changes they have to make to be able to host them. See also the World Cup). Wikipedia has a table of cost:pay back (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Montreal took 30 years(!) to pay off.

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

refitman wrote: To add: people being healthier is an economic benefit. Less days off work leads to increased productivity. Healthier people lead to a reduction in demand on the health service.

Yes - but I return to my original question. Any evidence that any of this happens/

Sorry - very tired so am almost using "telegraphese". Hope it's not coming over as terse and testy.

My recollection from discussions had in the health service when plans were being made for London 2012 is that there usually are some measurable health benefits but they are modest and relatively short lived.

Although, if I remember rightly, at the time of the bid Labour generally used improved access to facilities and training, stimulation of interest and commitment to sport and sport based activity as part of their approach to integrated health and well being for all. The initial arguments for volunteering as past of the national approach to widening access to sport and collective ownership of the Olympics were also put forward as broadening participation.

Worked well, didn't it.

fedup59 wrote:Although, if I remember rightly, at the time of the bid Labour generally used improved access to facilities and training, stimulation of interest and commitment to sport and sport based activity as part of their approach to integrated health and well being for all. The initial arguments for volunteering as past of the national approach to widening access to sport and collective ownership of the Olympics were also put forward as broadening participation.

Worked well, didn't it.

Viva la Big Society.

I think the point of the Olympics is to be the Olympics.

There may be some incidental benefits, which are nice, but they are not the point of the exercise.

'Silent' phone calls really boil my piss. Second, is 'No caller ID' phone calls, as you can't vet them or block them. So the posh boy from Owen Smiths campaign scored a massive own goal today.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... s-to-close" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Government cuts to supported housing could force services to close