Discussion > EU must be joking
Alan kendall on Jun 27, 2016 at 10:01 AM
I followed many reports, including these below, and thought that Science took second place to Environmentalism at the UEA CRU:
The first speaker poses many of the questions that the sceptics were thinking, and have not been answered by the Warmists, but the relevant piece is later, at 15:39:54:
Robert Christopher on Oct 24, 2013 at 5:43 PMBishopHill:
I have transcribed, as best as I can, what Graham Stringer (Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, Greater Manchester) said, at 15:39:54 in the clip:As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I had a very close look at what was happening at the University of East Anglia and the two studies ... the two enquiries that went into it ... at the time.
And, what those inquires ... looking at it closely, there wasn't science going on there.
There was a group of enthusiasts who were pretending to be Scientists, because what they were doing was not testable in terms of the critical things that were in the public domain
nor Russell's Report didn't ask the basic question about whether emails had been deleted at the University of East Anglia
and the Oxburgh report, which was supposed to look at the science, didn't, but it did turn up the fact that they weren't using the best statistical methods of analysis and they couldn't reproduce their work.
Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable'
TheGuardian:
Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable'
WattsUpWithThat:
An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU
Robert Christopher
Sandy S. I recall a similar but different story (an alternative version?) which went - the boy cried out to his father as he was
dragged from his bedroom by an enormous tiger (wolf?) " why didn't you believe me" Moral: it may be impossible to convince about genuine dangers in the face of authority.
Alan kendall
RobertC. You are discussing what happened in CRU, not UEA as a whole. Genuine criticisms of what some at CRU did and how the two enquiries were conducted can be upheld. But blame those at CRU or those outside UEA who advised on the committees' makeup and the committees themselves (with no UEA representatives).
You are blaming UEA for wasting money. I'm telling you you are mixing up CRU and UEA. If you still wish to smear the whole university go ahead, but then you also smear me (and Paul Dennis, who many here admire).
I'm not claiming the authorities at UEA to be blameless. They should have instigated a more rigourous and forensic review of CRU's activities. I, in my limited capacity, advised them to do this but was ignored. You should also spread your blame to the entire scientific advisory system in the UK, especially the Royal Society. I don't hear you complaining about the millions that body has wasted on climate related matters. Reserve your big guns for those who truely deserve them. The UEA (ex CRU) is a minnow by comparison.
My bank manager awaits instructions!
Alan kendall
Martin A
Bad timing as usual. While you are in Ireland I am in England. I would have liked to buy you a pint.
Thirty years ago I checked under my car and kept my mouth shut. Politically things are a lot less touchy now. Jaw jaw instead of war war.
Traditionally the "struggle ran in generations. Old IRA men gave up terrorism and went into politics as Gerry Adams and others did in Sinn Fein. There would be a period of quiet and then their sons would take up the guns again.
Brexit is making a united Ireland a live issue again and may bring a lot of IRA men out of the woodwork.
The Republic has a right to be unsettled. Almost all their surface trade with the continent goes through the UK and there is a lot of trade across the land border. People in the North shop in Dublin and nip over the border to buy petrol, which has a lower duty in the South. Most businesses on the island behave as though the border does not exist. There are also a lot of Irish working in England. Would Brexit block them?
Of course, the Republic might not want the North, for two reasons.
1 million protestants would hold the balance of power in the Rail.
Effectively, it costs Westminster £15billion/year to own Northern Ireland. That is £300 a head for the UK. If Ireland united tomorrow it would cost them €3600 a head. Ask the Irish you meet if a united Ireland is worth that much to them.
Entropic man
Alan kendall on Jun 27, 2016 at 9:56 AM
I also agree, it is a muddle, though one of Cameron's own making.
He could have NOT promised a referendum at the last election: UKIP might have gained some more MPs, and who knows what the results would have been. Labour might have won outright, UKIP might have gained tens of seats, even been the biggest party, perhaps, but UKIP winning a majority by 2020 is stretching it, even for a supporter, though as Brexit has happened, who knows what might have been.
He could have NOT said he was a Remainer before he went on his renegotiation trek around Europe: he might have had more success :) (but I would have probably felt still ruled over and not in a sovereign nation, but there you go!)
He could have returned from renegotiation and declared that, having said that he 'ruled nothing out' and the EU were so uncooperative, he was for Brexit. he would still be PM, but he has always been a Remainer, part of the Establishment!
He could have done all that he did, but remain aloof, as Wilson did, though he was a Remainer, even before he said he wasn't, to secure the Tory leadership.
He could have run a fair, even handed referendum, and thought up some positive reasons for staying in.
He could have done all that he did, but ensure Eddie Izzard and Bob Geldof were kept away from the public, and Obama away from the subject. (I thought all Americans :) valued Independence, and no 'taxation without representation', and that everyone knew that.) And stopped Juncker from making threats. And stopped Martin Schulz from making threats, or at least being so happy about it. And stopped Christine Lagarde from being doom laden. And stopped making statements that Juncker would reject.
If only ...
Robert Christopher
An actual estimate of the Northern Ireland budget is like a mirage but the recent figure I have now found is roughly £20 billion per year. It has to include pensions and what not. I think the 5 billion I found before was core spending or something like that.
There's a lot of public servants in the place. Scotland is similar.
However a bit of hope is that if NI were to separate all those internal movements of agricultural products would now be exports so the deficit would come down. That's always been the thing for farmers in the province. It was one of the reasons why the BSE ban wasn't liked as local cow traceability was much higher than in the rest of the U.K. but yet a blanket ban was applied (my father was a butcher and taught butchers)
Micky H Corbett
I suspect that very little will change betwen the two parts of Ireland. Nobody really wants to erect a barriers. There might be a need if large quantities of duty free goods start whizzing about but that's about it. Nobody really knows what will happen and won't make decisions on things like that for a while yet.
TinyCO2
Robert Christopher, Alan Kendall is quite capable of answering for himself, but can I suggest you have a look through the Climategate emails for correspondence involving someone called Alan Kendall.
Clearly there was some 'disquiet' within the concrete carbuncles of UEA, about what was going on within the Ivory Tower of CRU (Circular Retro Urinal)
I have never met Alan Kendall, or anyone else from this Blog (to my knowledge!)
golf charlie
RC. (11.39am) Oh why not shoot the poor bug*er while you are tar and feathering him. You've already emasculated him for no good reason other than your incredible drive to be free of the foul EU.
Lets look at what he should have done by looking at what you believe he did wrong (correcting deliberate rewritings of history along the way).
1.Actually the Tory manifesto DID promise a referendum, in part to warn off UKIP's potential claim of being the only party to offer one.
2. Grammar of second point rather mauled and difficult to fathom. But he has always been known as proEU, and its difficult to believe he would have been believed if he had claimed to be otherwise.
3. He should have lied about now being a leaver. A somewhat dubious tactic to retain trust with your colleagues.
4. He should have remained aloof. He should have abrogated responsibility for leadership while remaining leader? Another winning tactic.
5. He should have run a fair, even handed referendum. While remaining aloof? I think you need to be more specific about how he should have behaved to achieve this laudable goal.
6. He should have offered more positive reasons for staying. Many think he did, but again you are short on detail.
7.He should have somehow restrained celebs from exercising their right to speak out (using the police perhaps?) Obama EU and German politicians should have been prevented from issuing warnings (how? - threaten war?).
You are really out to lunch.
Alan kendall
@SandyS Surely many EU countries just act as if they are outside the EU anyway
Your country France just seems to do what the hell it likes ..banning UK meat at any excuse whether that ban is against EU rules or not.
Greek governments seem to not know the difference between a LOAN and a gift....and expected to be bailed out by countries who had privatised their own infrastructure like ports and energy biz, whilst Greece refused to privatise its.
Spain and Italy similarly disobey rules ...fishing, and chicken cage sizes etc.
stewgreen
Robert Christopher
Unfortunately German car makers aren't German politicians who may/will have a completely different agenda. Could I suggest that basing policy on articles in the Daily Mail is probably not a good idea.
I seem to recall £250 million being on the side of a bus, a UKIP one possibly. Later Nigel Farage said this was a mistake I think, However by then the mistake had entered the debate as a fact. I'm sure tell me something different but I talk to my friends, my sons and their friends and family, and it was £350 million no ifs or buts, even if some were clear that not all would or could go to the NHS. For the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall there was no warning that they should work harder and pay less tax instead of receiving UK money back from the EU as you suggested to EM.
SandyS
Entropic man
That's an interesting and useful post. Raises a couple of questions for me,
Having spent 100 years wanting a united Ireland would the public in the Republic stand any delay in starting proceedings if the North votes to leave the UK no matter what the cost?
Would Eire as a poor EU member not be a prime candidate for financial support?
I have always thought that should unification take place a large proportion of Ulster Protestants would emigrate, main destinations being UK, USA and Australia?
SandyS
Alan kendall on Jun 27, 2016 at 11:32 AM
I wasn't blaming you; in fact, I was doing the opposite.
What is clear is that the UEA has been tainted by the activities of the CRU, to which it is connected.
The UEA was often mentioned when discussing Climategate, and just look in the top left hand corner, above the climate change graph :) and the URL to see that they are still connected:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk
Robert Christopher
golf charlie on Jun 27, 2016 at 1:20 PM
See my above post.
Robert Christopher
RC. And they shouldn't be. 99% of those working at UEA knew nothing of Climategate. Less than 5%(?) of people in the School of Environmental Sciences (to which CRU was affliated) had any connection, and most of them, like me, were innocent. Every time you smear the University, you smear those who are blameless. You are not alone, every now and then golfCharlie has a pop, and I cringe all over again. Reserve your ire for those who deserve it.
Alan kendall
stewgreen
My country of residence does what it thinks best for it's people or what the people want. Perhaps because the French are very quick to get onto the streets to protest. On the other hand Britain, or it's functionaries, loves regulation and applying the rules with an iron rod. I don't think the EU as an organisation can be blamed for the different national characteristics.. I think that France was fined for the Beef ban, but continued anyway. Had it been the other way round I think that two things would have happened, French farmers would have been burning tyres in Paris and French officials would have been raising merry hell in Brussels at which point the UK would have caved in.
I have no great knowledge of Spain and Italy so can't really comment. In terms of animal welfare I think the UK has one of the stricter regimes better than the EU minimum. So things don't look good for Spanish and Italian chickens and fish after Brexit, not trying to be facetious, but it is the UK which did most of pressurising in this area. One of the areas where Britain has had soft unpublicised wins in the EU.
I think I posted a reply to Robert Christopher that Greece has been bankrupt or debt restructuring for more that half its time as a nation. Independent since 1827 and has been borrowing money since 1823 (dates are correct) and went bankrupt 3/4 years later, Greece has defaulted on its external debt five times in the modern era 1826, 1843, 1860, 1894 and 1932. Greece has hosted two Olympic Games whilst recovering from bankruptcy or in the middle of debt restructuring. Anyone hoping for anything different is suffering from an extreme case of optimism. I guess you could argue that EU politicians should have known better, perhaps being a realist and being a politician are mutually exclusive.
SandyS
Micky H Corbett
It is very hard to pin down a Northern Ireland budget.
The Barnet formula gives about £20billion for day-to-day spending but a lot of spending does not go through the Barnet formula.
The figures I gave were bouncing around during the Brexit campaign here. They may be no more reliable than the other numbers thrown around by both sides during the campaign.
Entropic man
SandyS
I left Northern Ireland on Saturday. The general reaction among the people I talked to before I left was
"We"re buggered. What do we do now?"
Entropic man
TinyCO2
It is not the duty-free goods which will be the problem, though there is a long and dishonourable tradition of smuggling in Ireland.
The problem is that the open border will become the new soft route for migrants from within and without the EU.
If the Brexiteers want to keep their immigration promises, the Irish border would need to be plugged
Entropic man
Not necessarily. The biggest flood of people is because of legal, tax paying immigration, complete with NI numbers issued like confetti. If you put a lot of energy into ending illegal workers working, you'd reduce the appeal of coming. You make companies pay much higher rates for non UK citizens if they want to hire them legally. You plough a lot more money into poorer areas that attract low paid immigrants to compensate for the effects. You crack down on antisocial behaviour. You make a serious commitment to forcing people home if they shouldn't be here. Resentment towards immigration would probably come down.
TinyCO2
One of the arguments for immigration is that they pay for themselves. Really? I'm sure some do but I bet a lot of the lower paid are a net drain when you add benefits, schooling, housing and medical costs. Aren't we told that only the top 20-30% pay for all they they receive and the top 20% pay a large chunk for everyone else? Until the enormous minimum wage comes in, most lower paid earners are a constant drain on benefits and we can assume that eventually as people reach retirement age there will be a massive pension bill. Supposedly the government has done that calculation but do you believe they've got it right? Many companies are indicating that they can't pay that much and survive. Care for the elderly in particular will be hit. Bringing more and more people in isn't the answer as that's a classic pyramid scheme.
TinyCO2
EM
I eventually tracked budget numbers down from a BBC NI piece about the budget. It is all a bit hard to pin down Indeed.
The main immigration issue will indeed be migrants within the EU. Not so much outside as that's just your typical immigration anyway and they'll have a harder time coming through the UK.
But it can be done and the Garda have a long record of having to deal with smugglers off the south and west coasts.
I think people in NI need a shake as we've had the assembly doing bugger all but more partisan politics (if that's even what it is) on too many occasions over the last 10 years. I was over when the whole DUP walking out thing was happening. It was funny when Teresa Villiers mentioned that she could send over 6 people to hold fort.
The assembly has 108 members!
Micky H Corbett
Entropic man
That's the reaction of every ex-pat I've spoken to here. Many who are retired are thinking of heading for the UK before they suffer any health problems, probably to rent as selling property is going to be almost impossible for a few years.
UK swapping healthy hard working Poles for aged frail Britons?
SandyS
TinyCO2
Yes stopping illegal immigration is a good thing. But you have to make it worth peoples while. To me fining lorry drivers for having stowaways seems counter productive. Those doing it for money will just put the price up as insurance against getting caught, those innocently carrying illegals will be disinclined to report them if the end result is a large fine.
Whether people contribute or not is a difficult thing to assess, Is the man picking cabbages in Lincolnshire on minimum wages and claiming some benefits contributing less than the TV chef cooking them? Is the hospital toilet cleaner on a minimum wage contributing less than the surgeon? Is the labourer digging holes in the road to lay sewers contributing less than the man designing a new highly efficient vacuum cleaner? I don't know but the only one I know I can live my life without is the TV Chef who probably contributes the most financially. Not the best comparisons but you get the point I hope.
SandyS
Alan Kendall 9:56 generally agree!
Nobody expected this result, but it has been feared for 25 years, so nobody has dared to ask the UK population what they actually thought.
If the Vote had ended up 52:48 the other way, the UK and EU political establishments would have breathed a sigh of relief, continued as before, but with greater resolve not to put the EU in a manifesto, let alone on a ballot paper.
Now we have the rump of the EU trying to dictate how the UK should elect a new Premier. (I think they have already realised this is yet another mistake)