Blah Blah

Louisa, you do know who the centre for policy studies are don't you? On page 8, he makes the claim that the UK would only be affected by the WTO tariffs, that apply to developing countries, but the EU have kept countries like Africa deliberately out of it's markets with punitive tariffs for decades. ANY tariff makes an export non-competitive to countries within the EU.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah, are you implying that upon exit, all of > this would overnight stop? I don't get your > argument. It will continue to happen because the > trading relationship between us and the EU would > not stop. It wouldn't be in either parties intest > for that to happen. Scaremongering. Find a better > argument, if you have one. > > Louisa. At least my argument is presenting hard data. Maybe you could at least acknowledge your made up figure of 200,000 jobs for the nonsense it is. Jobs will disappear because companies will not be able to price their goods competitively with EU members. What part of that don't you understand? I can sell a car to Germany for X amount now. Leave Europe and I have to sell for X + Y, because I have to pay a tariff. Result is that Germany can get that car for the old price from another EU member. That is how the economics of business works. This is why those countries that want to trade with the EU have to take a secondary membership. Go and look at Norways deal. We can NOT be completely outside of the EU and have the same treade deals - we are really not that important. And just on cars, Germany will soak up that new trade. They would love nothing more than to expand their already sucessful automotive industry.

But you forget the Germany etc will still be in the EU and bound by their trade rules. They won't be able to offer trade deals on equal terms to the EU. The whole point of the EU is that it protects it's own matket amongst itself. Our goods will no longer be competitive with other EU countries. You are agruing for putting billions of pounds of trade at risk and leaving us to compete with countries we can not compete with. The three continents you mention all have far cheaper labour costs. You view is typucal of someone that doesn't understand how trade deals work, or the sums involved. And incidently, we do already trade with countries outside of the EU. It's a myth that the EU stops us doing that. Made in Taiwan and now China has always marked most of our imports. We don't export much to those countries because they make everything far cheaper. But if you are a business, there is nothing to stop you importing or selling to anywhere in the world.

And everything you want to know about trade figures here. https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx The UK car industry alone exported 3.6 bn worth of exports in December alone. 139,000 people are directly employed by that industry in the UK with another 611,000 employed in related industries. And that's just one industry! I can keep going Louisa..... we also export precious metals - 5.7 bn in December, 3.5 bn of mechanical appliances, 1.7 billion of electronic equipment and 1.7 billion of pharmecutical supplies. How many people do you think are employed in producing that lot every month Louisa? Enough data for you? Now where's yours?

Something else for you to read Louisa before you show how little you know about the EU,and it's trade with the UK. www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf

I never said it got more back, I said it got more than half back. You might want to read my post properly before going off on a dinosaur rant ;) Last time I checked, the UK wasn't a socialist country, so I'll dismiss your stupid comment about only socialists being able to really get it. The number of jobs is not a made up fact. It is the total of people employed by business who rely on exports to the EU for more than half their turnover. Go and have a look at some trade data sites. 200,000 jobs? - you are having a laugh. http://theconversation.com/ties-that-bind-the-british-jobs-data-that-really-shows-the-value-of-the-eu-34032 Fox, we have min wage laws.

Louisa, the EU gives back more than half the money we pay to it in grants, to areas that are predominently poor. Do you think the government would still give that money to those areas if we left? The same government that announced ?300 million to help LAs deal with cuts, but 89% of which is going to Tory LAs. Governments spend money where they can buy votes. And did you really just say get the coal mines going again? Yeah lets destroy the p;anet completely shall we - after all, YOU won't be here to face the consequences. You also clearly have no understanding of the world trade of resources and commodities. The EU is the only reason workers still have any employment rights. It's not perfect, but millions of jobs rely on it. It would be lunacy to leave.

???? the poor are trapped. Telling people to f off to another country because their own government is too right wing to care about them is no answer. Just look at the six Tory cabinet members that are for Brexit, some of the nastiest and most right wing people in government.

Voting to stay here too. Don't know anyone who is voting to leave.

But you used the words 'savage cuts' lol. To be fair, the demographic of people that post or engage in debate on here is so narrow that proper balanced debate is a rare thing anyway.

Fly tippers though are not people putting out the odd sofa or washing machine are they, which is who the bulk refuse scheme is aimed at. I'd hardly call charging a savage cut either. 73% cut to youth services is a savage cut, along with the coming cuts to adult social care, including care services for the elderly. Those are the extent of government cuts on Southwark. Compared to that, having to pay a tenner or whatever the charge will be to have your 'stuff' removed isn't really a big deal is it? Or would you rather an elederly person has shorter care visits so that everyone can have their bulky items removed for free? If you can afford to buy a new anything, you can afford to pay to have the old one removed.

Dulwich Estates made the Vanessa Radio show yesterday too over the sale of playing fields at the Judith Kerr School to build alms houses on.

The simple solution would be for him to put lids on the crates (and clean his truck). Rotting vegetable waste isn't a health hazard. Compost is made from it.

And with 40% cuts from central government since 2010, Southwark like any LA is struggling to maintain many services. If anyone wants to criticise Southwark charging for bulky waste collections, maybe write to David Cameron instead?

As long as the voltage is the same it's fine and most cars work off 12v. The only point of the jump start is to spark the plugs anyway, to get the engine started. It's hard to do any real damage. There can be several reasons for a battery not charging apart from the battery itself being past its sell by date. A failing alternator or a missing fan belt will both stop the battery from recharging.

Exactly. The gyms and swimming pools would still be open whether people were using them or not. They don't cost more to run because more people are using them. And the range of classes, activities on offer is wide ranging, so most revenue streams won't be affected at all. I would imagine Saturday and Sunday evenings are very much off peak anyway and many of the people taking advantage of the offer wouldn't go if they had to pay - so it's not really lost revenue at all. I think the cost is negligable.

Those on low incomes would struggle to even find a few pounds a week to go swimming.

I had a look on the ordinance survey maps to and until around 1950 it seems it was a pathway to some land behind. Doesn't say for what use. So an added on garage makes far more sense than a coach house. I half wonder if that label was also to sell the property as something it never was, for effect. All of it is ridiculous though.

Good article.

By the end of a 25 year mortgage it would have cost almost 1.2 million to buy! Googled the address to see if it started life as a house and it seems it was originally a coach house. So 1.2 million for an old shed then?

It's an excellent idea that will enable people on low and no incomes to genuinely improve their fitness and health. The long term benefits of that will far outstrip any cost. Savings to potential treatments by the NHS alone are worth considering. Obesity and poor cardiovascular health opens up a person to a whole raft of medical conditions that are an expense not only to the NHS to treat, but also to local support services funded by the council. We don't do enough preventative healthcare in the UK. This is a positive step towards that.

Yes it's tfl... https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/elephant-and-castle The site has a face to contact....a sponsorship manager - says it all really.

Maybe the councillor could clarify that? Either way, to remove subways that ensured pedestrians didn't come into contact with traffic, and to remove the safe island crossings for cyclists, that meant they didn't have to (as they now do) navigate compacted vehicles and take a leap of faith to change lanes, are not decisions that can be defined as improving safety. Something does not make sense in the planning or design of this new layout. And sadly someone has now died. The comments under the article I posted are rather interesting, particularly with regards to the forthcoming redevelopment of the area.

Yes I read the comments and found them interesting too, especially the one that suggested the new layout was designed to attract investment over any kind of sensible traffic/pedestrian management. Even cyclists had an easier time before because they could use assigned pathways crossing the roundabout. Now they are forced to go with the rest of the traffic, trying to cross lanes to get to the right filter lane, amongst more densely packed vehicles. The fact still remains, that if pedestrians are forced to cross traffic, there will always be the risk of accidents. When pedestrians can avoid traffic altogether, there are no accidents. The same is true for cyclists. How the designer of this new layout thought either of those two groups of users would be safer is mystifying.

The bursery point though does shed a different light on the money given by the estate to those schools, which is why I wondered. Business rents, again not something I know anything about, have been pushed up everywhere no? Small businesses have disappeared from our high streets because of that reason. There has to be some element of greed by landlords there.