Earl Aelfheah

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.

The point is apbremmer that leaving the EU will not help your Lorry driving friend. Not unless we stop trading with the EU altogether in which case, yes, we could ignore conditions of EU trade (including the free movement of labour), but then your friend would probably end up unemployed.

Sorry for the typos in on my phone

if we want to continue trading freely I n Europe, we'll have to play by the same rules and regulations as everyone else. people seem t think that we can leave, put up all kinds of barriers to trade and free movement of goods and labour, without our competitors doing the same, because you know, we're special. It's childish and unrealistic. We live in a globalised world. We're not going to opt out and find ourselves back in the 50s. The world well still be the same as the day before, we'll just be a bit more irrelevant and have a bit less influence.

This is good : http://m.imgur.com/gallery/gXdTZ1z

The idea that if we vote out we can 'set our own rules' is nonsense. If we still want to trade with Europe, we'll still have to comply with EU regulations, well just have little influence in helping shape them. Cameron's line about "the illusion if sovereignty but with less actual power" is about right.

More like 12 hours

hernehiller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course it will massively impact Dulwich village > and East Dulwich and you will undoubtedly be > campaigning for your own CPZ, good luck! Nice.

Speed bumps really should be designed to allow vehicles to travel up to the speed limit without the need to constantly break. Unfortunately, they don't. I do think they're bad for cyclists as they tend to lead to constant overtaking, dropping back, overtaking etc. This significantly increases the danger for people on bikes.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My old Mercedes would happily fly over them at > fifty no braking required > > Back in my tearaway days Your old Mercedes and every white van travelling down CPR.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i don't know in what world you can go over speed > bumps between 15-20 mph. The problem is that to > avoid damage to your car you have to go over them > at 10mph or less, which is what leads to all the > accelerating and breaking. ....which is why they're fundamentally flawed

This is the problem. creating a CPZ will make little difference to parking availability within the main part of the zone, but will inevitably cause parking problems around it's borders. It's like a huge ever growing pulsating brain that rules from the centre of the Ultraworld.

i don't know in what world you can go over speed bumps between 15-20 mph. The problem is that to avoid damage to your car you have to go over them at 10mph or less, which is what leads to all the accelerating and breaking.

My brother is always amazed (in a good way) when he visits ED, to find that there isn't controlled parking. He can never park near his house in Cricklewood and has to pay a fortune every year to have a permit. It's a nightmare when anyone visits as he has to spend ages trying to purchase visitor passes from Brent's highly unreliable online service. The only people it serves are traffic wardens and the council's finance department.

I love the idea that people take part in a consultation in order to say "I don't know". Genuinely don't understand why people would want a CPZ. it's not like there will be any fewer cars. You don't get guaranteed parking outside your house - it just makes travelling anywhere more difficult, having guests more difficult and parking more expensive. personally, I don't think 23% response rate is good enough. Bear in mind that those pushing for a CPZ will all have taken part in the consultation, where as many of those happy with the status quo won't even have been aware of it, sot he results are almost certainly skewed in favour of the 'fors'.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't be complacent even if (by some > miraculous universal assimilation of intelligence) > cars stuck to the 20mph, especially in side roads, > because the only near miss I've had as a > pedestrian is a cyclist bombing down the road. > They are almost silent until they are close to > you, and he would NEVER have been able to stop. Bikes are the real problem. That didn't take long.

Problem is, most of the rules aren't enforced - e.g. jumping lights, speeding down side roads, cutting corners and pulling out without looking. We just get speed bumps and the occasional camera. It would be good to get ACTUAL enforcement, by proper traffic police.

I support measures to reduce the precedent of cars, to slow traffic and improve the environment. The problem is, that will only work if at the same time, significant improvements are made to public / alternative transport. Otherwise no one is going to get anywhere.

The perpetrator is clearly deranged and needs to be caught as soon as possible. Very scary.

It's not about emissions, overall it's probably worse in terms of pollution and certainly all the speed bumps are. It's about reducing accidents and the seriousness of accidents, which is also important.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All of the technicalities of jump starting or push > starting aside, the OP has effectively partially > responded to her own complaint.... > > Living in a big metropolis is inherently more > 'unfriendly' than smaller towns.....I think you'll > find this relationship holds the world over....its > a downside of City living.... I don't really agree with that. I find people round here really friendly. Also, i'm willing to bet that if you knocked on your neighbours door they would help you.

I wonder whether it's the same people you see driving around in balaclavas, doing wheelies etc.

It's a fairly regular thing on Heber Riad. Police seem unable to do anything to stop them