Who is in and who is out?

[RogerBoyle]

Well we are now up to 20 pages and just like the rest of the country we are going around in circles just trying to point score against anybody with an opposing view
Regardless of which camp you are in. there is no one and I do mean no one that knows for certain what will happen if we stay or leave.
Its all best guess and speculation and at the end of the day we as a people will just have to endure the rubbish and scaremongering from both sides about what may or may not happen. In my immediate circle of family some 32 adults all eligible to vote we are all voting to leave.

 

[Jacob]

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088

 

[Grahamshed]

One of the things that puzzles me is that there seems to be an assumption that, if we chose to remain now, we will be locked in forever. We could surely chose to leave at a later date, if things get less tolerable. But if we leave and later decide it to be a mistake, the EU are not likely to rush to welcome us back with open arrms, I suspect ? In which context, remain is a much safer choice, as it keeps options open.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

The other thing that bothers me is all the people telling us what the money we save will be spent on. None of them have the ability to make that kind of decision.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Curious. That's pretty much how I feel when I read about Cameron, Kinnock, Benn, Sturgeon and company - but it's reality that makes me want out, not personal dislikes.

 

[RogerS]

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088

Convincing to you, maybe, but looking at his political views, the article can hardly be said to be objective.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088

Yes, indeed. It is worth considering who you are aligning yourself with. Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.

 

[MIGNAL]

Lol!

 

[Rhossydd]

Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.

As listening to Gove who famously wanted 'every school to be above average' ..... with that grasp of mathematics he's now talking about finance ??? <shudder>

 

[RobinBHM]

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088

I don't find that to be a very professional article, it doesnt provide any convincing argument, more of a unsubstantiated rant.

 

[Jacob]

.........
"Green" energy still only accounts for 1-5% of our supply, and this is unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade or so. .......

It is rising significantly year by year.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.

http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

Quite often, things are not all they appear.

The site above has been around for at least ten years. See also "the little book of Bell" - much of which seems to be available on the above link.

I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people. Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence, and I think Christine Hamilton's tenacity speaks volumes for her own character in particular.

Contrast that with Mandelson's "Yeah, so what?" approach over his mortgage application, and the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business (and so on)...

E.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

.........
"Green" energy still only accounts for 1-5% of our supply, and this is unlikely to rise significantly in the next decade or so. .......

It is rising significantly year by year.

The sole reason that the UK is installing so much 'green' electricity generation capacity is to comply with an EU directive. Everybody knows that both wind and solar are poor (and expensive) answers to the problem of reliable electricity generation - solar doesn't work when it's dark and works inefficiently when it's cloudy, wind is intermittent and may not be delivering at times of high demand, making back-up capacity from other sources necessary. Both have to be subsidised because the electricity they generate costs significantly more than coal, gas or nuclear. The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.

The answer to cleaner energy supply has been obvious to all for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.

http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm

 

[Jacob]

....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......

Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing.
The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.

 

[Jacob]

....
I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people.

Oh thats OK then! :lol: :lol:

Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence,

Well he would wouldn't he. But it certainly looks as though he was guilty.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

The answer to cleaner energy supply has been obvious to all for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.

Not so obvious to all, I don't think.

So nuclear for baseload is cheap heh ? How much did we agree to pay EDF for electricity generated at Hinkley C (if they build it) ? Just over twice the wholesale price IIRC. And I presume we get to keep the waste. I never can figure how they can price the full cost of nuclear energy. How do you cost keeping the waste safe and secure for 1000 years ? And that's just the expected duration for low level waste. Moreover, we import both gas and uranium, so there is still a security of supply issue.

 

[RogerS]

....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......

Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing.
The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.

Maybe humanity should stop breeding like rabbits.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

....The people who pay for this madness are the ordinary electricity consumer and the taxpayer.......

Yes true. But better to pay for this madness now rather than giving in to climate change and doing nothing.
The world is changing rapidly and energy is going to increase in price enormously - unless we can get green sustainable systems in place.

The problem is that we have to invest huge amounts of taxpayers' money in methods of generation that don't deliver much (and that intermittently) instead of methods of proven reliability and effectiveness because the former are defined by the EU as 'renewable' and the latter are not. Nuclear generation is as 'carbon-free' as wind and solar, but is not defined as 'renewable' by the EU.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The answer to cleaner energy supply has been obvious to all for many years - nuclear for baseload, with gas CCHP stations to supply peaks. The reason we have not followed this route is solely because we have to comply with the arbitrary target of 20% electricity from 'green' sources, imposed without regard to local conditions. It may be well-meaning, but it costs everybody hundreds of pounds a year on their domestic electricity bill, and by making energy a commodity more expensive than it needs to be, makes UK industry less competitive than it could be, thus being a drag on the economy.

Not so obvious to all, I don't think.

So nuclear for baseload is cheap heh ? How much did we agree to pay EDF for electricity generated at Hinkley C (if they build it) ? Just over twice the wholesale price IIRC. And I presume we get to keep the waste. I never can figure how they can price the full cost of nuclear energy. How do you cost keeping the waste safe and secure for 1000 years ? And that's just the expected duration for low level waste. Moreover, we import both gas and uranium, so there is still a security of supply issue.

Nuclear is cheap relative to wind and solar, mainly because it is fairly reliable (Sizewell 'A' had a lifetime load factor of 66% at closure, compared with typical wind turbine load factors of about 25%, and the big coal stations at around 75%) and generates a lot of electricity. Wind and solar don't generate much.

It's very hard to find unbiased data on generating costs. The nearest I found was a paper by the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2004, which put the costs at coal 2.8p/Kwh, gas 3.0p/Kwh and nuclear at 3.2p/Kwh (including waste and decommissioning costs). Wind cost 7.2p/Kwh (which is why it has to be subsidised). Since then, coal and gas prices have fluctuated, but are currently low, so they may well be cheaper.


The main point is that the UK is no longer able to set it's own energy policy. UK energy policy must comply with EU directives. The consequence is that our energy security is very close to being compromised, and our domestic and commercial electricity bills are higher than they otherwise should be.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Whatever the arguments for leaving (and there are good ones) they pale into insignificance when you look at the leaders of the pack.
Possibly the single most convincing argument for staying in:

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1088

Yes, indeed. It is worth considering who you are aligning yourself with. Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.

Certainly - but I wouldn't much want to associate with Cameron either - he is an out and out liar. "If I don't get get what I'm asking for, I'll lead the out campaign" - he didn't get what he was asking for, and all of sudden he's telling us that bankruptcy and starvation beckons.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Listening to Neil Hamilton talking about corrupt EU bureaucrats was quite breathtaking.

http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

Quite often, things are not all they appear.

The site above has been around for at least ten years. See also "the little book of Bell" - much of which seems to be available on the above link.

I'm in no position to know for certain, either way, but I have met both of the Hamiltons on a few occasions in the past and I like them as people. Mr. H. has always and consistently protested his innocence, and I think Christine Hamilton's tenacity speaks volumes for her own character in particular.

Contrast that with Mandelson's "Yeah, so what?" approach over his mortgage application, and the Kinnocks turning the EU into a well-paid family business (and so on)...

E.

And the Blairs taking out mortgages that their income couldn't possibly support?