Ive never experienced an undemocratic coup before

[The Natural Philosopher]

Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial law
next?
Who needs Putin when you have the EU...

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

[Tim Ward]

On 20/10/2022 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial law
> next?
> Who needs Putin when you have the EU...

Well, we've decided to go with Putin rather than the EU, haven't we - he
owns the Tories, he owns the Torygraph, he owns Vote Leave, he owns
#brexshit.

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 20/10/2022 10:47, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 20/10/2022 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial
>> law next?
>> Who needs Putin when you have the EU...
>
> Well, we've decided to go with Putin rather than the EU, haven't we - he
> owns the Tories, he owns the Torygraph, he owns Vote Leave, he owns
> #brexshit.
>

I think he has you muddled. He owns the EU and remain.

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 20/10/2022 10:47, Tim Ward wrote:

> On 20/10/2022 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial
>> law next?
>> Who needs Putin when you have the EU...
>
> Well, we've decided to go with Putin rather than the EU, haven't we - he
> owns the Tories, he owns the Torygraph, he owns Vote Leave, he owns
> #brexshit.
>

Such hatred....who taught you that hatred was Cool , Tim?
--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[Tim Ward]

On 20/10/2022 12:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/10/2022 10:47, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 20/10/2022 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial
>>> law next?
>>> Who needs Putin when you have the EU...
>>
>> Well, we've decided to go with Putin rather than the EU, haven't we -
>> he owns the Tories, he owns the Torygraph, he owns Vote Leave, he owns
>> #brexshit.
>>
>
> Such hatred....who taught you that hatred was Cool , Tim?

Eh? There was no hatred there, just facts.

[The Natural Philosopher]

so 'brexshit' is an unemotional fact is it?
You are a disgrace to your university.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[Tim Ward]

On 20/10/2022 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/10/2022 13:03, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 20/10/2022 12:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2022 10:47, Tim Ward wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2022 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> Will it be tanks or artillery or merely fixed referanda and martial
>>>>> law next?
>>>>> Who needs Putin when you have the EU...
>>>>
>>>> Well, we've decided to go with Putin rather than the EU, haven't we
>>>> - he owns the Tories, he owns the Torygraph, he owns Vote Leave, he
>>>> owns #brexshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Such hatred....who taught you that hatred was Cool , Tim?
>>
>> Eh? There was no hatred there, just facts.
>>
> so 'brexshit' is an unemotional fact is it?

Well, yes, #brexshit is a disaster paid for by Putin as part of his
strategy to destabilise the EU and the UK to the point where he felt
comfortable invading Ukraine.

History will decide whether he arrived at the correct judgement, but
facts are facts.

> You are a disgrace to your university.

WTGAF has this got to do with any university?

[The Natural Philosopher]

The fact that none of the education, dispassionate and critical and
rational thinking is apparent in your polemic, which is in fact 180
degrees out. Putin supports remain, not Brexit. An independent UK has
been his worst nightmare.

You talk like a third rate Marxist academic. But then, that's what you are.


--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

[Alan Jones]

On 20/10/2022 19:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Putin supports remain, not Brexit. An independent UK has
> been his worst nightmare.

Your signature said:
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

Do you have convincing evidence that Putin supports remain?

I am full of doubt!

Seriously though - what is the evidence?

Cheers from Alan.

[The Natural Philosopher]

See my other post ....let's say that I have experience of politicians,
city boys, and Big Money, and it is all fundamentally based on
corruption. And lies.
So I don't listen to what people say or appear to do, I apply Cicereros
maxim.

Cui Bono?

I assume that everything Russia says is a lie, I assume that if Putin
appears to get close to a politician, it is to discredit him, I assume
that if Putin wants to buy a politician, the last thing he would do is
appear in any way to be connected, and in fact would overtly be seen to
discredit the *opposition* to that politician by appearing to support them.
Therefore Putin will be behind the people who are in fact telling you
that Putin is behind their political enemies.

If Putin is represented as being close to Farage or Trump, you may be
sure he is financing the democrats or the remain faction. Putin is 100%
propaganda. There is not a grain of truth in anything he says ore does
overtyl, All his real activities are covert.

Let's look at the Greens, offshoot of the KGB funded CND movement, who
ousted their fairly sane co founder Patrick Moore, who believes in
nuclear power and doesn't believe in Catastrophic man made climate
change, in favour for a full on revolutionary Marxist Agit Prop style
crusade against, nuclear power, and FRACKED UK gas, but strangely not
Russian gas.

Cui Bono?
Gazprom and Putin.

Consider renewable energy, *mandated* by the EU in terms of a 'renewable
obligation' , eschewed by Russia, that renders the EU utterly dependent
on Russian gas. (Norway isn't part of the EU).

Cuo Bono?
Gazprom and Putin.

Why *wouldn't* he have bought the EU with direct bribes and promises of
a way to increase German industrial profits and employment by selling
fucking useless windmills to every country in the EU? Merkel placates
the greens and the German Plebs, Putin gets a stranglehold on EU energy,
and thinks he will therefore be able to do as he pleases. And Annex the
Donbas which strangely enough has huge reserves of oil gas and coal....

It is absolutely in his interest to keep the UK energy policy 100%
aligned with the EU, and nuclear power and fracking off the cards.

Remaining in the EU ensures that.


So he would far rather the UK, which is fully capable of developing its
own nuclear power and has frackable gas, is subject to the will of the
EU, because he owns that already. He didn't and doesn't own liz truss,
so she had to go. Or Jacob Rees Mogg.

An independent and successful UK pursuing a policy of industrial growth
and wealth creation based on low taxes nuclear power and locally fracked
gas is *out of control* of the big players in the worlds *second biggest
industry* - energy.

That cannot be allowed. Imagine if we removed all the artificial
obstacles to nuclear power and banged in a 100% nuclear grid, and dumped
all the gas power stations and renewables. We halve our consumption of
gas, and if we frack whats left in our own nation, even if it is
expensive, its taxable to fund the UK.And its not going into Putins Pockets.

Unthinkable.


Why is Iran, also a massive oil and gas producing nation, selling
weapons to Putin?

Cui Bono?

All this is a conspiracy theory if you believe what the BBC and the
guardian and the politicians tell you.
All this is completely rational and obvious if you assume that all your
leaders and politicians and captains of industry and indeed Unions,
green peacers and Just Stop Oilers are cynical riders of the vast global
energy gravy train and are taking cuts and commissions and rake offs
from Big Oil and Big Gas, in whose interest it is to promote renewable
energy.

Not oppose it.

I attended a renewable energy conference back around 2003 or thereabouts
in which all the options were explored from the point of private
investnent. All required government subsidy, none were economically
viable, and none were when put together, technically viable either. They
all needed fossil or nuclear underpinnings.

The difference between our views is that my personal experience of the
likes of the Boris Johnsons, Putins, Macmillans, Clive Sinclairs,
Bransons, etc of this world is that they inhabit a space that is simply
beyond ordinary moral principles. They are career criminals, that manage
to either just not break the law, or not get found out when they do.

They are so accustomed to disregarding any morality but their own, that
they are genuinely surprised when you stop them cycling on a pedestrian
path, or having a party under lockdown.

They take 'legalised' bribes - insider trading (Blair + cheap loans and
the housing market) highly paid non executive directorships., free
cocaine porn and prostitutes, of either sex and any age, on oligarchs
yacht parties...They are there to be bought, or blackmailed, and all
that matters is they are rich and appear powerful.

And meanwhile the useful idiots of the liberal media and islington
wokerati are handsomely rewarded by their papers and TV channels (owned
by very rich people) to praise them or damn them with carefully hoarded
and released 'revelations' from their past to get rid of them if they
are in the way.
They laugh at your genteel middle class woke morality, because they
*built* it for you to keep you in your place.

And Putin and the EU are both big players.

UK is currently a wild card, and they fear that a lot. It must be
brought to heel, or destroyed.
THAT is what is going on, behind the political charades, the massively
funded remain and rejoin movements, the propaganda, Big money,
corruption, and ruthless character (and actual ) assassination of anyone
who cant be controlled.


Poor Greta. She asked the elephant in the room 'why aren't you doing
something?' SSSH! Greta get out of politics now. We aren't doing
anything because this isn't about climate, this is about using the
greens as agents to make money, and there is no need therefore to do
anything except make a lot of noise and try and shut down the UK
nuclear oil and gas industry, because its COMPETITION,

It is entirely in Putin's interest to give a few thousands to leave, in
order to completely compromise them whilst the billions he sends to
remain, are virtually untraceable.

You will scoff and consider this all tinfoil hat stuff. Well so would I,
except Ive been there, seen it all and got the fucking T shirts. These
people are complete dangerous ruthless criminal cunts, as we now see in
Ukraine, and they think nothing of a 'Doctor Kelly' style moment. They
don't play by the rules, they make the rules. To suit themselves. They
lie, are completely corrupt, play all ends against the middle, nothing
is true, everything is perception, and that in the end is their big mistake.

They can fool the Guardian reading BBC watching useful idiots, but they
can't fool the laws of nature. Putin's army is as useless as Germany's
windmills, when called upon to actually do some work.

So watch this space.

The real issue is nothing you will ever see discussed in the media, it
is 'are these people who have all the power and own the political
process and all the levers of social power, capable of actually running
a post industrial society so that it does not collapse in a heap'?

And the answer, mostly, is no.

Their world is coming apart at the seams. And they are totally scared of
losing control.

It isn't going to be pretty. We are going to suffer massively. The EU
probably will not survive it.

Putin looks like he has fucked up and wont survive it.
Iran looks like it has fucked up and wont survive it.

Biden is trying to fuck up America, but America is diverse enough so
that the cities may die but the big empty mid west will make it. That's
where all the real wealth is generated. food and fuel and minerals

China? Well they are trying to kill their populations off, or force them
into lockdown and control them that way. They may have to start a war to
kill more of the populations. And disguise the fact that they are
economically bankrupt



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

[Alan Jones]

On 21/10/2022 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/10/2022 20:37, Alan Jones wrote:
>> On 20/10/2022 19:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Putin supports remain, not Brexit. An independent UK has been his
>>> worst nightmare.
>>
>> Your signature said:
>> “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is
>> that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
>>
>> Do you have convincing evidence that Putin supports remain?
>>
>> I am full of doubt!
>>
>> Seriously though - what is the evidence?
>
> See my other post ....let's say that I have experience of politicians,
> city boys, and Big Money, and it is all fundamentally based on
> corruption. And lies.
> So I don't listen to what people say or appear to do, I apply Cicereros
> maxim.
>
> Cui Bono?

If I follow your thread:
* Putin supports a larger and more powerful EU (with UK back in it)
because it would give him more control over the UK.
* Particularly because he would gain more control over the UK energy mix
through his puppets in the EU, and could make us more dependent on
Russian gas.
* He is secretly supporting "remain" to get the UK back in the EU,
because the EU don't like nukes.

But the EU are not against nuclear power, that is an issue for the
member states. The EU does supports nuclear power reactor research, on
behalf of all of its members, and I thought you liked the idea of small
modular reactors (SMR) for distributed power generation:

Overview mentioning the 14 (now 13) EU member states with nuclear power
plants:

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/nuclear-energy_en


Example EU/Canada/China project on SMR safety and licensing, that is
H2020 funded since 2020:

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/945234

So there is perhaps some hope?

[Tim Ward]

On 21/10/2022 21:00, Alan Jones wrote:
>
> If I follow your thread:

There's little mileage in trying to argue with Putin bots.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 21/10/2022 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> It is entirely in Putin's interest to give a few thousands to leave, in
> order to completely compromise them whilst the billions he sends to
> remain, are virtually untraceable.
>

In case you didnt notice the Leave vote passed in 2016 and we left the
EU 2 years ago, you also seem to have missed the fact that Boris Johnson
led the charge to impose economic sanctions on Russia, visited Ukraine
before any other leader and supplied them with weapons before most of
the EU got through talking abouut it. But hey dont let facts get in the
way of a good rant.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 21/10/2022 21:00, Alan Jones wrote:

In general that is actually not the case. For two reasons

1/. It all comes under Euratom regulations, which have made the EPRs
under construction 3 times as expensive as they were in Asia. UK is no
longer part ofd Euratom, but hasn't made a distinct swerve away from
their regulatory framework (yet)

2/. The Renewable obligation directive means that all money goes to
build wind farms, so there is none left over for nuclear power. Even
though its massively less CO2 emitting over a lifetime, taken holistically.

> Overview mentioning the 14 (now 13) EU member states with nuclear power
> plants:

Indeed, but most of them were due to be phased out. New nuclear has been
priced out of the market as described above.
On;y the twist of te SMR revolution combined with a deep uneasy feeling
that people freezing to death this winter will blame the governments
they elected, has had a slight effect.,

>
> https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/nuclear-energy_en
>
> Example EU/Canada/China project on SMR safety and licensing, that is
> H2020 funded since 2020:
>
> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/945234
>
> So there is perhaps some hope?
>

My current thesis is that the Powers That Be face a seriously hard
dichotomy. They are quite capable of controlling the political process
and money supply to essentially oust any PM they don't like - Viz Liz -
but they are actually so embroiled in what I call 'political idealism' -
that is the thesis that people can be controlled by determining what
lies you feed them - that they have forgotten that the physical world is
not so malleable. In short you cant bullshit the laws of physics, and
the laws of physics - not idealistic aspiration - govern what
technology you can build, and what technology you can build determines
the real shape of society. Not the naive notions of a bunch of left wing
affluent middle class BBC Art Student presenters in Hampstead and
Islington.

Likewise, you can print money, but you cant print wheat. Farming, to
maintain yields, needs energy.

Putin is finding this out to his cost. Bluff and bullshit have kept
Russia more respected than it turns out they should ever have been, and
as the most highly propagandising state in the world, excepting possible
N Korea - it is face to face with the reality that for all the bluff and
blah, when the war flag dropped, the bullshit stopped, and it was NLAWS,
not human laws, that counted.

It looks likely that it will topple.

Will the EU be next?

There are huge similarities in the way they both act....



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I would say that proves my point.
That's why Boris had to go.

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, we haven't left the EU in any
meaningful way yet.

It is still dictating policy.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

[Alan Jones]

On 22/10/2022 11:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> It looks likely that it will topple.
>
> Will the EU be next?
>
> There are huge similarities in the way they both act....

Most of what the EU has done, I like. Some is not perfect (e.g. food
production subsidies), but as we are perhaps finding out, developing a
better system is hard, expensive, and leaves the farmers with
uncertainty, partly because of the volatility introduced by local politics.

Overall though, I idealistically like the idea of abolishing border
controls over more of the planet, and giving the population rights to
live, love and work seamlessly across larger parts of it. I wonder how
well the USA would have done if it was a set of independent states like
Europe, and I am not saying that the answer is obvious. There might have
been winners as well as losers. By independent, I probably mean not
pooling sovereignty over more than 50% of their tax income.

Then, the issue becomes of which things to do at which scale, to be
efficient and fair at large scales, but to encourage diversity, freedom
and creativity at the small scale. A well-layered federation perhaps.
With independent media and judiciary, limits on power, mature democratic
processes etc. to try to stop the abuses of power that you allude to.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with the Euopean SMR programmes.

Slightly off topic, the European Commission have been working for years
with ENTSOG and ENTSOE on what the future energy grids might look like
(e.g. will Europe move to HVDC transmission), and I like these maps:

https://www.entsog.eu/sites/default/files/2021-11/ENTSOG_CAP_2021_A0_1189x841_FULL_066_FLAT.pdf

https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/Publications/maps/2019/Map_Continental-Europe-2.500.000.pdf

Cheers from Alan Jones.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 23/10/2022 08:40, Alan Jones wrote:
> On 22/10/2022 11:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> It looks likely that it will topple.
>>
>> Will the EU be next?
>>
>> There are huge similarities in the way they both act....
>
> Most of what the EU has done, I like. Some is not perfect (e.g. food
> production subsidies), but as we are perhaps finding out, developing a
> better system is hard, expensive, and leaves the farmers with
> uncertainty, partly because of the volatility introduced by local politics.
>

The EU seem to have been successful at hiding the deep levels of
corruption, and nationalism that is intrinsic to what amounts to the
third reich, where no country gets to vote on the apparatchiks.

> Overall though, I idealistically like the idea of abolishing border
> controls over more of the planet, and giving the population rights to
> live, love and work seamlessly across larger parts of it. I wonder how
> well the USA would have done if it was a set of independent states like
> Europe, and I am not saying that the answer is obvious. There might have
> been winners as well as losers. By independent, I probably mean not
> pooling sovereignty over more than 50% of their tax income.
>
> Then, the issue becomes of which things to do at which scale, to be
> efficient and fair at large scales, but to encourage diversity, freedom
> and creativity at the small scale. A well-layered federation perhaps.
> With independent media and judiciary, limits on power, mature democratic
> processes etc. to try to stop the abuses of power that you allude to.
>

All the things the EU has essentially failed at.

We have lots of great pan European organisations that exist
independently of the EU. Nato for example.

You like the idea of an EU. So do I, I just think this implementation
needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

An EU nation has less autonomy than an American State.

> Anyway, we'll see what happens with the Euopean SMR programmes.
>
> Slightly off topic, the European Commission have been working for years

On a project that competent non political orgainsations could have
completed in 6 months....

> with ENTSOG and ENTSOE on what the future energy grids might look like
> (e.g. will Europe move to HVDC transmission), and I like these maps:
>

HVDC is a cost benefit analysis thing, and it has some advantages and
some disadvantages, so just put them in tow columns and cost them up.
Work of half a day at most.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

[Tim Ward]

On 23/10/2022 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> The EU seem to have been successful at hiding the deep levels of
> corruption, and nationalism that is intrinsic to what amounts to the
> third reich, where no country gets to vote on the apparatchiks.

Ah! So you prefer the current UK system, where at least "the deep levels
of corruption and nationalism" are, now, out in the open! I begin to see
your logic.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 23/10/2022 14:39, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> The EU seem to have been successful at hiding the deep levels of
>> corruption, and nationalism that is intrinsic to what amounts to the
>> third reich, where no country gets to vote on the apparatchiks.
>
> Ah! So you prefer the current UK system, where at least "the deep levels
> of corruption and nationalism" are, now, out in the open! I begin to see
> your logic.
>

The first step to getting incompetence and corruption reduced (you will
never get rid of either) is to expose it and see if it is really what
people want, and if not what tools they have to deal with it.

Brexit has forced the EU and its backers to show their hand on more than
one occasion as totally antidemocratic manipulators of other nations
political processes.

Their response to Brexit and any attempt to capitalise it has been to
smash Britains face against a wall and declare 'look what you made me do'

This has not gone unnoticed.

We now know that the EU are more powerful and more dangerous than Nigel
Farage claimed they were.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

On 23 Oct 2022 15:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> We now know that the EU are more powerful and more dangerous than Nigel
> Farage claimed they were.

I think you added three words at the end that weren't needed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nigel was only a danger to the people fraudulently riding the EU gravy
train.
I guess that includes you.

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[Alan Jones]

On 23/10/2022 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Moving to HVDC for the pan-European transmission grid is a huge
infrastructure investment, and the time is not yet right. They are
balancing the future grid requirements (a changing target) with the
cost, disruption and timescales of the rollout, where the future costs
are also changing (e.g. the costs and capabilities of the required SiC
power electronics are improving.)

They have to produce the evidence of effectiveness, economy,
flexibility, maintainability, resilience (I think a big plus for DC),
etc. in order to be able to plan in detail, and to persuade the member
states to press the start buttons.

They have been fostering the underlying technologies, standards,
business cases etc., in order to make the advantages outweigh the costs
sooner rather than later.

Here is one paper for example, because I know you like grids (:-)

https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/entsoe_pp_HVDC_181205_web.pdf

There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.

Does that give you any hope?

Cheers.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tj3f4k$17t4a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:21:24 on Sun, 23 Oct
2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>An EU nation has less autonomy than an American State.

Having lived in both that's nonsense. There's no equivalent of the FBI
or Federal income tax in the EU, for example.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan Jones]

I think I once heard that around 25% of all tax revenues are controlled
by the US State administrations, and about 75% by the Federal
administrations.

I get the impression that the centralised share of the spending for the
EU is less than 5% for any member state, with member states controlling
more like 95%, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have references to
analysis of this?

This paper says 2% on average, but that was a long time ago (2016):
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67030/1/Begg_EU%20budget.pdf

The EU are hoping for more "own resouces" though. Here is part of the
response to Covid that gives some background to their resources:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_7026

It would be interesting to see how the UK stacks up against the US and
EU in terms of who gets to control which tax revenues, and what the
adminstrative overheads look like. But perhaps the economies are too
different to allow meaningful comparsons.

Cheers.

[Alan Jones]

On 24/10/2022 08:08, Alan Jones wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tj3f4k$17t4a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:21:24 on Sun, 23 Oct
>> 2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>> An EU nation has less autonomy than an American State.
>>
>> Having lived in both that's nonsense. There's no equivalent of the FBI
>> or Federal income tax in the EU, for example.
>
> I think I once heard that around 25% of all tax revenues are controlled
> by the US State administrations, and about 75% by the Federal
> administrations.

I just remembered this lovely old money chart, which is roughly
consistent with that:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/money_huge.png

Does anyone know of anything similar for the EU, or even for the UK?

Cheers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 23/10/2022 22:55, Alan Jones wrote:
> There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.
>
> Does that give you any hope?

How many engineers make policy anywhere in the UK or the EU?

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 24/10/2022 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:

Of course there is. Every nation makes contributions to the EU. And
there is interpol

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 24/10/2022 08:08, Alan Jones wrote:

> I get the impression that the centralised share of the spending for the
> EU is less than 5% for any member state, with member states controlling
> more like 95%, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have references to
> analysis of this?

You dont control spending overtly by passing the money through a supra
national organisation, you control it surreptitiously by subverting the
politicians in the vassal states to spend money on what you want it
spent on.

HS2?

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

[The Natural Philosopher]

I believe that now over 50% of GDP flows either through government
directly, or via government mandated and hence EU mandated quasi private
sector organisations.


Like the BBC, windfarm operators, German car manufacturers whose
products are virtually mandated by legislation, etc etc.

Grabbing money into a federal tax system is so outdated, when you can
control it via a continent wide system of 'directives' and discrete
funding of activist organisations that lobby for it to get spent on what

you want it spent on.

Even Putin is more advanced than that.

[Tim Ward]

On 24/10/2022 08:08, Alan Jones wrote:
>

> I think I once heard that around 25% of all tax revenues are controlled
> by the US State administrations, and about 75% by the Federal
> administrations.
>
> I get the impression that the centralised share of the spending for the
> EU is less than 5% for any member state, with member states controlling
> more like 95%, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have references to
> analysis of this?

Yeahbut that sort of thing is what you and I call "facts". And therefore
irrelevant to any argument with Putin's #brexshitters, because Putin's
#brexshitters don't do facts.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tj5l2k$1kueu$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:00 on Mon, 24 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>On 23/10/2022 22:55, Alan Jones wrote:
>> There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.
>> Does that give you any hope?

>How many engineers make policy anywhere in the UK or the EU?

I used to.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <tj5l4f$1kueu$2...@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:59 on Mon, 24 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On 24/10/2022 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tj3f4k$17t4a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:21:24 on Sun, 23 Oct
>>2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>> An EU nation has less autonomy than an American State.

>> Having lived in both that's nonsense. There's no equivalent of the
>>FBI or Federal income tax in the EU, for example.
>
>Of course there is. Every nation makes contributions to the EU. And
>there is interpol

neither of which is on a tenth the scale of the USA federal.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan Jones]

On 24/10/2022 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 08:08, Alan Jones wrote:
>> I get the impression that the centralised share of the spending for
>> the EU is less than 5% for any member state, with member states
>> controlling more like 95%, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have
>> references to analysis of this?
>
> You dont control spending overtly by passing the money through a supra
> national organisation, you control it surreptitiously by subverting the
> politicians in the vassal states to spend money on what you want it
> spent on.
>
> HS2?

More relevant for the EU is this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud_Europe_Atlantique

Ten years of taling about it (including with the affected communities)
Ten years of detailed design work.
Five years of constructions and procurement from start to fare-paying
passengers.

Cost €8bn, new tracks laid 360km.
The project came in on budget and slightly early.

It was a nice idea to bypass some cities, with 38km of high speed feeder
lines for the trains that have the extra stops. It allows for even
faster end-to-end services. It would be a bit like bypassing Birmingham
for the fastest Manchester trains.

Anyway, compare with HS2 originally budgeted at £15bn for the full "Y",
which only just had a positive cost-benefit.

Now we in the UK have mainly the left-hand bit, which did not have a
positive cost-benefit, at somewhere over £100bn, and no-one is pulling
the plug.

The cheapest Paris to Bordeaux tickets seem to be quite affordable too,
for the 2h21m journey of 500 miles:

https://www.thetrainline.com/en/train-times/paris-to-bordeaux

They say that a few trains do it in 2h03m.

For comparison, that's only 10% shorter than London to Edinburgh.

Something for the French to be proud of?

Cheers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

As I pointed out the main way te EU exercises its spending power is by
getting its fully compromised appointed and corrupt national
politicians to spend money on projects that benefit its chosen
suppliers and beneficiary. Roads that go nowhere, airports that never
got used, a rail link that is pointless and uneccessary. Wind farms that
fail to generate electricity, but are nonetheless mandatory.

Its a web of super efficient corruption and crony capitalism and sate
capture to rival Putins oligarchy, and it is equally impatient of
anyone who dares stand in its way.

Unfortunately when it comes to actually running a continent, it is
utterly incompetent.

Its purpose is political power, not governmental competence.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

[Alan Jones]

On 24/10/2022 10:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 22:55, Alan Jones wrote:
>> There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.
>>
>> Does that give you any hope?
> How many engineers make policy anywhere in the UK or the EU?

Nowhere near enough.

But I do occasionally work with many engineers who have influence and do
a great job with the European Commission policies. Does ENTSOE not count?

In the UK, TfL seems to have similar experienced, wise, and respected
engineers that it is a joy to work with.

The DfT less so (sad face).

Cheers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Have you ever BEEN to France?

Lets just take two FACTS.

Populatiion density, not of the UK but of ENGLAND (=281 per Km2), and
population density of France (=119 per Km2) *two and a half* times more
populated.

Naturally its hugely harder and more expensive to build a road or
railway in England, and that's only down to politics in the sense that
about 1 million immigrants a year are flooding into a country that is
already overcrowded.


> Cheers.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[The Natural Philosopher]

You were never a member of national government.


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Such emotive spew immediately marks you out as a person lacking any
rational arguments, who is in clear denial of a reality he can neither
understand nor accept.

[Alan Jones]

On 24/10/2022 11:24, Alan Jones wrote:

> On 24/10/2022 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 24/10/2022 08:08, Alan Jones wrote:
>
> The cheapest Paris to Bordeaux tickets seem to be quite affordable too,
> for the 2h21m journey of 500 miles:

Sorry, I meant 500km

2hrs is a bit ambitious for 500 miles, unless you're in China (:-).

My bad, but why couldn't we use metric measures like the Ordnance Survey
adopted in the middle of the 20th Century. I always loved the old "one
inch" maps with their metric grid.

[Tim Ward]

On 24/10/2022 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Its a web of super efficient corruption and crony capitalism and sate
> capture to rival Putins oligarchy, and it is equally impatient of
> anyone who dares stand in its way.

Such emotive spew immediately marks you out as a person lacking any
rational arguments, who is in clear denial of a reality he can neither
understand nor accept.

--

[Alan Jones]

I wasn't trying to make a cost comparison bwteeen countries, just that
the costs were kept under control better in France. And I agree that HS2
is far more complex, so costs were less certain, but once they had more
than doubled, say to £30bn, shouldn't HS2 have been cancelled?

Cheers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 24/10/2022 12:19, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> Its a web of super efficient corruption and crony capitalism and sate
>> capture  to rival Putins oligarchy, and it is equally impatient of
>> anyone who dares stand in its way.
>
> Such emotive spew immediately marks you out as a person lacking any
> rational arguments, who is in clear denial of a reality he can neither
> understand nor accept.
>

There is nothing emotional about that Tim. It is a simple statement of
fact, in a wayh '#brexshitter' which belongs in a kindergarten
playground....which is of course where the EU wants its citizens to
think they live - is not.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Of course it should have been. It was driven through against the wishes
of the people in its path, common sense and budgetary discretion, simply
because it was an EU vanity project and someone in the EU wanted it to
happen, and pressure was applied.

It wasnt a UK project, it was part of an EU wide railway project that
lots of people got rich off to build a full size model railway for some
bureaucrat to play with.
And all done with UK taxpayer money. So the EU could claim it doesn't
control large sums of money.
Just enough to bribe the local politicians with. SO much cheaper, and
you can wash your hands of the consequences.

[Alan Jones]

On 24/10/2022 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> It wasnt a UK project, it was part of an EU wide railway project that
> lots of people got rich off to build a full size model railway for some
> bureaucrat to play with.
> And all done with UK taxpayer money. So the EU could claim it doesn't
> control large sums of money.
> Just enough to bribe the local politicians with. SO much cheaper, and
> you can wash your hands of the consequences.

One of the unexplained oddities about HS2 was that it didn't join up
with the EU high speed railway network, which could have been achieved
by through running, or at least a transfer station, with HS1.

HS2 terminates at Euston, and passengers have to walk to St. Pancras if
they want to go high-speed rail to Europe. Why not a London high speed
bypass to HS1 for passengers and freight that are not destined for London?

So as we stand there is not much chance of direct services from
Manchester (or Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield) to Paris or Brussels or
Amsterdam. And no direct freight to take some of the lorries off the roads.

Conversely, HS1 has Lille Europe for connections without going through
Paris, and the high speed trains in Germany are magnificently connected,
using cross-platform transfers for popular changes.

So, HS2 if/when built, is not going to be much use as an extension of
the EU high speed rail network. Sadly!

At least we around Cambridge have enjoyed "cross-road" transfers to
Paris and Brussels since HS1 moved North from Waterloo. My own record is
7 minutes from arrival at St. P to catching the scheduled departure to
Cambridge, although I did have skateboard wheels (and therefore proper
bearings) on the old suitcase.

Cheers.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tj5rso$1kueu$2...@dont-email.me>, at 12:11:20 on Mon, 24 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On 24/10/2022 10:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tj5l2k$1kueu$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:00 on Mon, 24 Oct
>>2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 23/10/2022 22:55, Alan Jones wrote:
>>>> There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.
>>>>  Does that give you any hope?
>>
>>> How many engineers make policy anywhere in the UK or the EU?
>> I used to.
>
>You were never a member of national government.

I had the ear those who were, and that's a less stressful way to get the
right policies in place.

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:56:55 +0100, Alan Jones <ajn...@exospan.com> wrote:
>
>HS2 terminates at Euston, and passengers have to walk to St. Pancras if
>they want to go high-speed rail to Europe. Why not a London high speed
>bypass to HS1 for passengers and freight that are not destined for London?

Freight doesn't need high speed rail. There are already direct routes to the
tunnel for freight.

>So as we stand there is not much chance of direct services from
>Manchester (or Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield) to Paris or Brussels or
>Amsterdam. And no direct freight to take some of the lorries off the roads.

There is already direct freight from the regions through the tunnel.

As far as passenger traffic is concerned, the reality is that there simply
isn't the demand for direct routes from north of London through the tunnel.
This has been mooted several times in the past, and doesn't need HS2 to make
it possible - Eurostar trains are perfectly capable of running on the ECML.
But the reality is that none of the proposals for direct routes from north
of London ever had a viable business plan.

If and when that ever changes, then a link from HS2 to HS1 would be
relatively easy to add. It's only a short distance, and can probably be
retrofitted to existing lines rather than reuiring major new construction.

Mark

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 24/10/2022 13:56, Alan Jones wrote:
> At least we around Cambridge have enjoyed "cross-road" transfers to
> Paris and Brussels since HS1 moved North from Waterloo. My own record is
> 7 minutes from arrival at St. P to catching the scheduled departure to
> Cambridge, although I did have skateboard wheels (and therefore proper
> bearings) on the old suitcase.

When my BIL had his 80th birthday party in W Germany various UK based
members travelled there, The railway journey from the London based
members proved slower than the drive to airport, fly to cologne and hire
car option, and my own 'sod it, just drive and catch the slow ferry to
Dunquerque' was almost exactly the same time.

Trains buses and bicycles basically suck. I spent my youth fighting
timetables strikes and breakdowns on railways, or cycling miles in all
weathers, or waiting for buses that never arrived, or arrived early and
left you utterly stranded
and never again.
Trains are perfect for freight, but useless for all but commuter
passengers.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
.I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yeah and I married Churchills grandaughter. No, I didn't. But I knew
her. So what? arrogant prat.
Should we blame the total incompetence in the field of technical policy
directly on you then?

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tj652l$1mm5m$2...@dont-email.me>, at 14:48:05 on Mon, 24 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On 24/10/2022 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tj5rso$1kueu$2...@dont-email.me>, at 12:11:20 on Mon, 24
>>Oct 2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 24/10/2022 10:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tj5l2k$1kueu$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:00 on Mon, 24
>>>>Oct 2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/10/2022 22:55, Alan Jones wrote:
>>>>>> There is a useful one-page executive summary in the paper.
>>>>>>  Does that give you any hope?
>>>>
>>>>> How many engineers make policy anywhere in the UK or the EU?
>>>>  I used to.
>>>
>>> You were never a member of national government.

>> I had the ear those who were, and that's a less stressful way to get
>>the right policies in place.
>>
>Yeah and I married Churchills grandaughter. No, I didn't. But I knew
>her. So what? arrogant prat.

>Should we blame the total incompetence in the field of technical policy
>directly on you then?

My fulltime job for several years was to inject competence into the
setting of (governmental and regulatory) technical policy by acting as a
go-between. There were numerous wins, but of course only in a fairly
small area, that being telecoms policy.

Had industry decided to fund me better, or other industries decide to
fund people like me in their areas of operation, more could of course
have been achieved.

In terms of the skills required, I think it mainly came down to not
indulging in megaphone politics (something techies are really bad about
overdoing), and doing lots of research on both side of the fence
culminating in never ever telling the officials or politicians something
that wasn't true.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <5c616aca-29cf-dab8...@exospan.com>, at
13:56:55 on Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Alan Jones <ajn...@exospan.com> remarked:

>> It wasnt a UK project, it was part of an EU wide railway project that
>>lots of people got rich off to build a full size model railway for
>>some bureaucrat to play with.

>> And all done with UK taxpayer money. So the EU could claim it doesn't
>>control large sums of money.

>> Just enough to bribe the local politicians with. SO much cheaper, and
>>you can wash your hands of the consequences.
>
>One of the unexplained oddities about HS2 was that it didn't join up
>with the EU high speed railway network, which could have been achieved
>by through running, or at least a transfer station, with HS1.
>
>HS2 terminates at Euston, and passengers have to walk to St. Pancras if
>they want to go high-speed rail to Europe. Why not a London high speed
>bypass to HS1 for passengers and freight that are not destined for
>London?

For passengers there's the dual problem of customs/immigration
formalities, plus with perhaps 16tph arriving at Euston from ay least
eight places in the UK, but only perhaps four trains an hour through the
tunnel (currently London-only originating, and to three destinations))
how do you timetable a useful though service?

What might someone living in Manchester expect in terms of a choice of
through trains to Brussels?

And if that's one or two per day, the cost of having the
customs/immigration facilities in Manchester would be prohibitive.
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Green]

On 24/10/2022 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> As I pointed out the main way te EU exercises its spending power is by
> getting its fully compromised appointed and corrupt national
> politicians to spend money on projects that benefit its chosen

> suppliers and beneficiary. [...]

>
> Its a web of super efficient corruption and crony capitalism and sate
> capture to rival Putins oligarchy, and it is equally impatient of
> anyone who dares stand in its way.

Remarkably like the current Tory party, then.

> Unfortunately when it comes to actually running a continent, it is
> utterly incompetent.

Substitute "country" for "continent" and we're on roll.

> Its purpose is political power, not governmental competence.

That fits, too.


Jon
--
*** WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! ***
Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

[Theo]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 13:56:55 +0100, Alan Jones <ajn...@exospan.com> wrote:
> >
> >HS2 terminates at Euston, and passengers have to walk to St. Pancras if
> >they want to go high-speed rail to Europe. Why not a London high speed
> >bypass to HS1 for passengers and freight that are not destined for London?

That was part of the HS2 project, but it got deleted in the name of cost
reduction.

> Freight doesn't need high speed rail. There are already direct routes to the
> tunnel for freight.

Freight does if it's UIC (Continental) loading gauge. Currently UIC gauge
freight can only reach as far as Barking in East London. Any freight that
travels on the rest of the British network needs to be at the restrictive
Network Rail loading gauge. That means special wagons and a reduced
capacity.

It also precludes double deck trains.

OTOH UIC freight would be limited to HS2, so even if you move the edge of
the UIC zone to Birmingham or Manchester or wherever, to take advantage
you'd need a depot directly on HS2 or with a gauge-cleared route to get
there. Which makes that of limited attractiveness anyway.

> There is already direct freight from the regions through the tunnel.
>
> As far as passenger traffic is concerned, the reality is that there simply
> isn't the demand for direct routes from north of London through the tunnel.
> This has been mooted several times in the past, and doesn't need HS2 to make
> it possible - Eurostar trains are perfectly capable of running on the ECML.
> But the reality is that none of the proposals for direct routes from north
> of London ever had a viable business plan.

Since Brexit, the border control requirements have made such through
services increasingly unviable, I agree.

> If and when that ever changes, then a link from HS2 to HS1 would be
> relatively easy to add. It's only a short distance, and can probably be
> retrofitted to existing lines rather than reuiring major new construction.

It involves fairly major tunneling in the Camden area, which is why it was
deleted. Building that connection between live running lines substantially
increases the complexity (and hence cost).

(there is an existing freight single track, but it doesn't offer enough
capacity to use it in regular passenger or increased freight service.)

Theo

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 24/10/2022 20:00, Jon Green wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > As I pointed out the main way te EU exercises its spending power is by
> > getting its fully compromised  appointed and corrupt national
> > politicians to spend money on projects  that benefit its chosen
> > suppliers and beneficiary. [...]
> >
> > Its a web of super efficient corruption and crony capitalism and sate
> > capture  to rival Putins oligarchy, and it is equally impatient of
> > anyone who dares stand in its way.
>
> Remarkably like the current Tory party, then.
>
> > Unfortunately when it comes to actually running a continent, it is
> > utterly incompetent.
>
> Substitute "country" for "continent" and we're on roll.
>
> > Its purpose is political power, not governmental competence.
>
> That fits, too.
>
>
> Jon

Exactly. That is what our membership of the EU has done, removed the
need for any competence in the governing parties.

We have had puppet governments since Blair, and now the puppets are
expected to act. Fortunately a new puppet with strings attached to the
old puppet masters has been installed.

So we will get 'stable decline' once again.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

[The Natural Philosopher]

They are not however *making policy*, are they?
Nor are they part of the EU.

Or the UK government.

I too have talked with UK grid engineers, and even - gasp - ex CEGB
engineers. And indeed the late great David Mackay.

As chief scientific adviser to Huhne's Ministry of Fear ^H^H^H^H energy,
he sat down with the incoming liberal idiots and told them the facts of
life about power generation. Huhne walked out and was not seen in the
ministry for a fortnight.

And like Dr Kelly, David Mackay died young, and an inconvenient truth
was removed to allow yet more pointless renewable energy, all *mandated*
by the EU...

How much of YOUR money has gone on subsidizing a technology, *mandated
by the EU*, that was clearly known not to be viable as early as 2007,
compared with say nuclear power, if you wanted to *actually reduce
carbon emissions* from the minority electricity energy sector?

Greta screamed "Why aren't you *doing* something about it?" She has gone
quiet, because that was a very awkward question, and the answer was that
together with Putin, the EU was in the business of making lots of money
for people via the model of pointless useless extremely expensive
renewable energy that needed to be backed up with lots of good Russian gas.

No one gave a tuppeny fuck about climate change. They all knew that Al
gore worked for a gas company. It was never about climate, always about
profit.

Everyone made shitloads of dosh, except the plebs, but fuck them anyway.
Democracy is such an irritation isn't it?

EU is very good at hiding how it operates. That doesn't mean it isnt
operational.


--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

[Tim Ward]

On 25/10/2022 14:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> yet more pointless renewable energy

If only the Tories had delivered net zero, instead of just dithering and
delaying about it as per their SOP - then we wouldn't give a shit what
the Russians did to fossil fuel prices.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 25/10/2022 17:11, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 25/10/2022 14:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> yet more pointless renewable energy
>
> If only the Tories had delivered net zero, instead of just dithering and
> delaying about it as per their SOP - then we wouldn't give a shit what
> the Russians did to fossil fuel prices.
>

Indeed. We would of course all simply be dead.

I really cannot believe you said that.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

On 24 Oct 2022 10:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:

>> In message <tj3f4k$17t4a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:21:24 on Sun, 23 Oct

>> 2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>

>>> An EU nation has less autonomy than an American State.
>>
>> Having lived in both that's nonsense. There's no equivalent of the FBI
>> or Federal income tax in the EU, for example.
>
> Of course there is. Every nation makes contributions to the EU. And
> there is interpol

Interpol isn't an EU organisation or anything close. Perhaps you
should actually check some facts to avoid looking like an ill-informed
twat blinded by hatred

[Theo]

Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> > If and when that ever changes, then a link from HS2 to HS1 would be
> > relatively easy to add. It's only a short distance, and can probably be
> > retrofitted to existing lines rather than reuiring major new construction.
>
> It involves fairly major tunneling in the Camden area, which is why it was
> deleted. Building that connection between live running lines substantially
> increases the complexity (and hence cost).
>
> (there is an existing freight single track, but it doesn't offer enough
> capacity to use it in regular passenger or increased freight service.)

Actually, now I look at the plans:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509217/Plans_-_Volume_1_Euston_-_Ickenham_and_Langley.pdf
(whatever revision that is, it's from 2016)

I now remember that the problem is the HS2 is in tunnel when it crosses the
North London Line, and only emerges from tunnel in the throat of Euston.
There's no way to get from HS1 to HS2 without a double reversal:
HS2->Euston (reverse)->Willesden Junction (reverse)->NLL->HS1.

That's very awkward to do operationally, and would have very low capacity as
you'd have to disrupt the high frequency NLL Overground service to do it.

The original plans had a junction and rising tunnel roughly where the
Adelaide Road vent shaft is being built, to meet the NLL on the surface.
It's hard to see how that could be easily retrofitted within the existing
HS2 tunnelling.

Once you're on the surface you could probably rejig the NLL tracks without
massive construction (there's a disused spare trackbed, although some people
in Camden want to turn that into a 'linear park'), but it's the HS2
connection that's the problem.

Theo

[tony sayer]

In article <tj64uq$1mm5m$1...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

Horses for courses really..

When i went to Aberdeen sometime ago to look at the Uni there we went by
train, best part of a day but having never seen the Forth bridge that
close was worth it. Came back by Air from Dyce to Luton took longer from
Luton to Cambs, another tale.

However if i need to go to London or central London the trains are now
very good for that a one day travel card is a good deal especially that
you can now use the service to Brighton thats got some stops around the
city area..

And best of all no parking the car issues:-)

Let alone the congestion charge and ULEZ exemption issues..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I'll leave that to EU suppporters who say 'brexshit'

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/10/2022 12:40, tony sayer wrote:
> However if i need to go to London or central London the trains are now
> very good for that a one day travel card is a good deal especially that
> you can now use the service to Brighton thats got some stops around the
> city area..
>
> And best of all no parking the car issues:-)
>
> Let alone the congestion charge and ULEZ exemption issues..

Fortunately I no longer *need* to go to London at all.

Big problems with public transport is you have to use its timetable, not
your own

[tony sayer]

In article <tj9fde$2614g$3...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>On 25/10/2022 17:11, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 25/10/2022 14:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> yet more pointless renewable energy
>>
>> If only the Tories had delivered net zero, instead of just dithering and
>> delaying about it as per their SOP - then we wouldn't give a shit what
>> the Russians did to fossil fuel prices.
>>
>Indeed. We would of course all simply be dead.
>
>I really cannot believe you said that.
>

If net Zero was that easy which it is not as renewables are piss poor
and Nuclear,, none of the Greens and politicos never wanted or
understood it..

And now i suppose we'll be buying modular reactors off the Chinese;!.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/10/2022 13:02, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <tj9fde$2614g$3...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> On 25/10/2022 17:11, Tim Ward wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2022 14:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> yet more pointless renewable energy
>>>
>>> If only the Tories had delivered net zero, instead of just dithering and
>>> delaying about it as per their SOP - then we wouldn't give a shit what
>>> the Russians did to fossil fuel prices.
>>>
>> Indeed. We would of course all simply be dead.
>>
>> I really cannot believe you said that.
>>
> If net Zero was that easy which it is not as renewables are piss poor
> and Nuclear,, none of the Greens and politicos never wanted or
> understood it..
>
> And now i suppose we'll be buying modular reactors off the Chinese;!.

Its not just that. We have built a society that is utterly dependent on
off grid power for transport.

You may get your plugin shopping trolley to run off a battery, but a 35
tonne artic to deliver your organic food to the supermarket needs to be
diesel, and around here one is constantly reminded that unless you want
to go back to a hundred people an acre hand picking potatoes, and
ruining their spines, tractors need diesel too.

And of course air travel stops. No battery has the energy density for
more than about an hour, and safety means that's probably not more than
200 miles range,.

Dont get me started on Biofuel either. There isn't the land area to grow
enough crops AND feed people.

Net Zero was nothing more then empty virtue signalling like all the
greenCrap™

Just another scam to drive yet more useless windmills that don't save
any emissions, and useless heat pumps that simply don't have the power
to heat a house properly on to a gullible public.

We have to go nuclear because fossil fuel prices are going up well above
the true cost of nuclear (and taking renewable costs up there too) but
that isn't nearly enough to do more than replace just the electricity
generating sector with non fossil primary energy.

In the end, its going to be cheaper to make synthetic diesel/avJet from
nuclear power than it is from biological sources.

But 'net zero' is probably 50-100 years away. It's a good thing climate
change has nothing to do with carbon dioxide really. Except rising
temperatures dump CO2 into the atmosphere from sea outgassing

I look forward to a bloody cold La Nina winter where polar bears are
flourishing London isn't under water, the poles remain stubbornly iced
up, and due to profiteering green technologies, we are all burning wood
to not die.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tjb7mf$2f475$7...@dont-email.me>, at 13:03:27 on Wed, 26 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>On 26/10/2022 12:40, tony sayer wrote:
>> However if i need to go to London or central London the trains are now
>> very good for that a one day travel card is a good deal especially that
>> you can now use the service to Brighton thats got some stops around the
>> city area..

>> And best of all no parking the car issues:-)
>> Let alone the congestion charge and ULEZ exemption issues..
>
>Fortunately I no longer *need* to go to London at all.
>
>Big problems with public transport is you have to use its timetable,
>not your own

That's right. Too many militant public transport activists live in
places like metropolitan London where there's a bus past their door
every five minutes, and perhaps four trains an hour to Zone 1.

Meanwhile here in Cambs people are rejoicing that the Mayor has rescued
(by a big subsidy) a bus service which runs once every two hours between
7am and 6pm, not Sundays.
--
Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

I see Sunak is back refusing to guarantee the triple lock, reimposing a
fracking ban unless impossible terms ("science proves its safe": Science
cant prove *anything* Rishi - Problem of Induction) are met.

The globalist rejoiner agenda to increase inflation, increase energy
prices, destroy savings and crash the housing market before blaming it
all on brexit and/or climate change and rejoining the EU without a
referendum, is now well in swing.

If you thought Liz Truss was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
UK is gonna be asset stripped,


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
..than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

[Tim Ward]

On 26/10/2022 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> The globalist rejoiner agenda

Hang on ... I thought "global Britain" was the *opposite* of "rejoin",
not part of the same agenda?

Or are you using "globalist" with its other, anti-Semitic, meaning?

[Roland Perry]

In message <tjbfm9$2ftof$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:19:53 on Wed, 26 Oct

2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On 26/10/2022 15:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tjb7mf$2f475$7...@dont-email.me>, at 13:03:27 on Wed, 26 Oct
>>2022, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 26/10/2022 12:40, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> However if i need to go to London or central London the trains are now
>>>> very good for that a one day travel card is a good deal especially that
>>>> you can now use the service to Brighton thats got some stops around the
>>>> city area..
>>
>>>>  And best of all no parking the car issues:-)
>>>>  Let alone the congestion charge and ULEZ exemption issues..
>>>
>>> Fortunately I no longer *need* to go to London at all.
>>>
>>> Big problems with public transport is you have to use its timetable,
>>>not your own
>> That's right. Too many militant public transport activists live in
>>places like metropolitan London where there's a bus past their door
>>every five minutes, and perhaps four trains an hour to Zone 1.
>> Meanwhile here in Cambs people are rejoicing that the Mayor has
>>rescued (by a big subsidy) a bus service which runs once every two
>>hours between 7am and 6pm, not Sundays.
>
>I see Sunak is back refusing to guarantee the triple lock,

He hasn't had the time to discuss that with the Chancellor and OBR (and
god forbid the pensions secretary) yet. He's not a President, you know.

>reimposing a fracking ban unless impossible terms ("science proves its
>safe": Science cant prove *anything* Rishi - Problem of Induction) are
>met.

Statements like that always have an invisible "sufficiently" in front of
"safe". Oddly enough next week I'll be meeting someone whose job has
been a petroleum engineer doing fracking since pretty much it was a
thing. I'll ask him what he thinks about both the safety and the
potential yields. Unless we've still had enough of experts, of course.

>The globalist rejoiner agenda to increase inflation, increase energy
>prices, destroy savings and crash the housing market before blaming it
>all on brexit and/or climate change and rejoining the EU without a
>referendum, is now well in swing.

Sounds like you need a hat made of something more substantial than
tinfoil.

>If you thought Liz Truss was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
>UK is gonna be asset stripped,

By whom?
--
Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/10/2022 15:56, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 26/10/2022 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> The globalist rejoiner agenda
>
> Hang on ... I thought "global Britain" was the *opposite* of "rejoin",
> not part of the same agenda?
>
> Or are you using "globalist" with its other, anti-Semitic, meaning?
>

Globalist has no anti semitic meaning

Globalism is something you probably need to look up, but in essence it
is a left wing theory that all problems would be solved via a global
technocratic anti-democratic unelected government, like the EU, on steroids

The only people who state it to be anti-semitic and or far right are in
fact globalists in order to discredit anyone who uses the term

Lets say that despite what Wiki says, it means 'tending towards big
state and world government, to replace democracy and the nation state'.

In essence you saw it in action when Liz truss, more or less
democratically elected, was forced from office by the actions of the
financial markets, who have installed without any democratic process
involving more than about 200 tory mps, all bought and paid for, their
puppet, Rishi Sunak. Just another rich boy in the rich boy club, and no,
he isn't Jewish either. Sadly. Jews are pretty decent people, compared
to the globalists...




--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

[The Natural Philosopher]

No they dont. Not in politics.

Oddly enough next week I'll be meeting someone whose job has
> been a petroleum engineer doing fracking since pretty much it was a
> thing. I'll ask him what he thinks about both the safety and the
> potential yields. Unless we've still had enough of experts, of course.
>

No fracking event has ever been connected with a seismic event of over 2.0.

About like standing on the kerb as a 30 tonner drives by


Look up how many earthquakes above that level Britain already has with
no fracking at all, and then consider what is going to happen when the
next one occurs. Rupert Read and his hop heads will be out screaming
'earthquake! Stop Fracking Now! and Vlad the Bad will rub his hands
together and toss extinction rebellion another million

>> The globalist rejoiner agenda to increase inflation, increase energy
>> prices, destroy savings and crash the housing market before blaming it
>> all on brexit and/or climate change and  rejoining the EU without a
>> referendum, is now well in swing.
>
> Sounds like you need a hat made of something more substantial than tinfoil.
>

The EU has form on this, in Italy, In Greece, in Portugal.., Our way or
the highway, only Germany is allowed to breach fiscal rules

But dont mind me, write it all down to conspiracy theory just like the
Guardian tells you it is.

I mean the Jews really WERE responsible in Nazi Germany weren't they? -
to say that the Nazis did it all themselves as a false flag was - well
ridiculous! Mr Hitler was a good chap just sorting out Germany's economy
and righting a few wrongs wasn't he, and a united Europe was not a bad
idea in those eastern European states and he was against communism as
well...

>> If you thought Liz Truss was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
>> UK is gonna be asset stripped,
>
> By whom?

International banks and corporations.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[tony sayer]

In article <tjb7mf$2f475$7...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>On 26/10/2022 12:40, tony sayer wrote:
>> However if i need to go to London or central London the trains are now
>> very good for that a one day travel card is a good deal especially that
>> you can now use the service to Brighton thats got some stops around the
>> city area..
>>
>> And best of all no parking the car issues:-)
>>
>> Let alone the congestion charge and ULEZ exemption issues..
>
>Fortunately I no longer *need* to go to London at all.
>
>Big problems with public transport is you have to use its timetable, not
>your own
>
>
>

Well still like the odd Prom concert of the summer and nowadays never
bother with a timetable from Cambridge, trains are quite frequent going
and not to bad returning tho i wish there were a few later ones like
they run to Peterborough!...

[Roland Perry]

In message <tjbodr$2gffh$3...@dont-email.me>, at 17:48:59 on Wed, 26 Oct

Your counter-bid is an invisible "completely"? In which case I politely
suggest you are mistaken.

>>Oddly enough next week I'll be meeting someone whose job has been a
>>petroleum engineer doing fracking since pretty much it was a thing.
>>I'll ask him what he thinks about both the safety and the potential
>>yields. Unless we've still had enough of experts, of course.

>No fracking event

In the world?

>has ever been connected with a seismic event of over 2.0.

That's a bold statement, do you have any cites?

But earthquakes are not the only safety issue.

--
Roland Perry