Earl Aelfheah

A lot of the people who wax lyrical about Inside 72 would, if it were opened today, call it Hipster B*llsh*t imo. The primary difference being their age and current lack of fun / affectation / pretentiousness (delete as you see fit).

Edt was busy. Everywhere else empty

As an aside, I went out Tuesday night in Peckham and there were loads of people out and about. Walked back down Lordship Lane and the place was empty. It was like a ghost town. I wonder whether there is an element of 'cannibalisation' going on, with the rise of Peckham eating into ED's businesses?

It's opening at 7 tonight apparently.

I actually liked the sign. I dunno, get the impression that whatever the did, people would be moaning. Clearly it won't be to everyone's taste, but at least it's somewhere new and it's good to see pubs opening up instead of being turned into flats for once.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The guy also lost his job as a result of this > > > > Did he? > > I think he still has a job at the BBC in a > different/better role. fair enough, I assumed as they'd cancelled the programme that he'd lost his job.

Bring on the moan :-( Personally, i'm glad to see new businesses investing in Peckham, bringing some money in to the area and employing local people.

The guy also lost his job as a result of this, received death threats and may potentially have suffered damage to his reputation in a pretty 'closed shop' type of industry.

used to be discount decorating possibly

sheff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's fanciful to believe that only 200k > jobs would be at risk. > The vast majority of GDP is from SMEs. > SMEs historically trade at a net surplus for > exports. > They are large employers. > > The company I used to run imported circa 15m from > Chima and Europe every year. Lots from Italy and > Germany. > We then exported 70% of all our sales outside the > UK. 30% back to EU. > > The distribution centre we ran just outside > Birmingham employed lots of people. > > Leaving the EU would mean all the goods imported > from the EU would attract duty at border, unless a > convoluted bonded warehouse could be set up. > Youd then pay duty to export to the EU again (it > was a luxury brand so we cover it for the > consumer). > > There is no doubt 70% of that distribution centre > would be moved to a facility on the outskirts of A > major French or German city. It would cut dead > money out of the supply chain. > > All that UK derived taxable profit flowing to the > EU Spot on.

Sazzle30 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John the Unicorn opens on Saturday I think it opens today actually.

Your issue has been caused by a CPZ displacing traffic into neighbouring streets. If it's extended it will push the problem on again. At some point someone has to actually object to the cause rather than the symptoms, end the protectionism and campaign not for perpetual expansion, but for a roll back of these ridiculous schemes.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to drop off or pick up there personally.

People's republic of Dulwich perhaps?

Yes

I think London should vote for independence from the rest of the UK

Brussels. Not just for Christmas.

Eh?

People have an opinion. What's your point, that no one can know the future? Well sure.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > the UK is Germany's 3rd biggest market - > Switzerland its 9th ad Norway its 29th > > The UK is also France's 3rd biggest market - total > exports to the UK E39bn compared to E15bn for > Switzerland and E6.3bn for Norway..... > > So I think we are (a more important player) Cameron has made a concerted effort to renegotiate terms. I don't know why people think that once we have played our only real card (flouncing off), we're likely to be able to come shuffling back with our tail between our legs and at that point extract significant concessions.

I was waiting for the punch line, but there wasn't one.

@artful - of course no one can claim to know exactly what will happen if we leave the EU, but that's not to say that certain scenarios are not far more likely than others. IMO, the best case scenario if we leave, will be that we continue to trade with europe on roughly the same terms as we do now. This of course will have achieved effectively nothing, except that we will be subject to, rather than party to the future rules and regulations imposed on nations trading within the common market. Worst case scenario is that we'll continue trading, but on significantly worse terms, also with the loss of influence. The idea that there is a third, more likely scenario, in which all member states quickly and happily agree to offering the UK preferential terms, providing us an advantage to all other members, shortly after we have shown them the finger, seems to me incredibly naive.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do you believe it to be fanciful rah, what > evidence do you have to prove that we would not > get better terms than the ones we currently have? > The Irish and Germans are already panicking at the > thought of brexit because the UK is one of the > biggest trading partners within the union, and > even if we decided to leave (against their > wishes), they would have to deal with that by > renegotiating terms which would benefit them as > much as us. At present we are one nation amongst > many, pumping money in for membership of an > organisation where we have very little influence > over matters anyway. Being outside won't change > that situation, but we may be able to change terms > of trade to benefit us, who knows? There are no > guarantees but at least we are actively seeking a > better solution for our own benefit. > > Louisa. Because, you cannot have a trading block which allows people to compete on unequal terms. If the EU allow the UK to set it's own terms - terms which give it an advantage over other nations within the EU, the whole single market will collapse.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question I have is wtf we are having a referendum > in the first place. It didn't bother me and it > was only my mate Farage stirring things up that > this happened. The reason we're in this position is two fold: The tabloids have spent years drip feeding misinformation, stupid stories about bendy bananas and people not being able to celebrate Christmas because of 'Brussels'. They've also done a nice line in xenophobia, conflating issues of asylum and migration and suggesting that people travel across Europe mainly to obtain benefits. The whole thing has obscured many of the genuine problems that exist within the EU and by distracting people from those issues, may have slowed progress towards addressing them. With regards the substantive matters of lack of accountability, a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy etc. - this is the second reason. I suspect that if, as a nation we had taken a more grown up approach to all this years ago, engaged fully with Europe, with a much clearer commitment to improving the institutions (instead of dithering with one leg in and one leg out), we may have been able to improve things significantly. The problem is we've demonstrated a lingering feeling of superiority - a nostalgic and unrealistic opinion of ourselves as a nation and our place in it (again, fueled in some small part by our pathetic 'up yours Delores' style press coverage). The sad thing about all this, is that if we leave, things in the EU will get worse, not better. We'll have less influence. We'll still have to comply with EU regulations (as long as we continue to trade in Europe) and we'll probably end up diminished as a country and economy. All largely because the quality of public discourse remains resolutely rubbish.

The idea that we can leave the EU and continue to trade, but on better terms seems fanciful to me. why on earth would they agree to more favourable terms of trade? We'll still have to trade with the EU, but will have far less influence over the rules which govern that particular market. The idea that we can leave and that this will somehow give us more control over how the European market operates or the regulations it imposes on trading nations is what is rubbish.