Jump to content


Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

mort

 Let me make this perfectly clear - any personal attacks will get you a suspension. The moderating team is not going to continually issue warnings. If you cannot remain civil and post within forum rules then do not bother to contribute. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

Just now, melthebell said:

remaining is the only option...every other option cuts off our noses to spite our faces, hurts us

But Mogg says leaving with no-deal is the only option. He has a similar one track mentality.

Hopefully someone with a greater sense of harmony and guiding a path that can gain wide support will prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, acmmjw said:

I'm not one for conspiracies, but does anyone one else think Europe has offered May a cushy job and pension if she can get out of Brexit?

Maybe a bit of cleaning work round EU HQ but nothing more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tinfoilhat said:

Given that it's nearly three years since the vote, and the likes of farage and davis (former chief negoiator) had years prior to come up with a plan and nobody has come up with one that keeps a decent majority of leavers happy, I'd suggest there isn't a solution. What makes you think a completely divided HoC can come up with a workable solution in less than a month?

They'll plump for something like an EEa or Norway solution, followed by a confirmatory referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woodview said:

But Mogg says leaving with no-deal is the only option. He has a similar one track mentality.

Hopefully someone with a greater sense of harmony and guiding a path that can gain wide support will prevail.

Mogg will make money out of it, i wont...i will get hurt by it

 

thats the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Mogg will make money out of it, i wont...i will get hurt by it

 

thats the difference

aka you have different opinions, because of different circumstances, different basic beliefs, different experiences. But you share a will to only go for your own preferred option.

People across the country also have many differences, and voted accordingly. What's right for them may not be right for you and vice versa. Therefore a solution that satisfies as many people as possible is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, woodview said:

They'll plump for something like an EEa or Norway solution, followed by a confirmatory referendum.

And if that confirmatory referendum doesn't confirm anything, what then? Round and round we go.

 

We need a referendum like we need a hole in the head. the fed-up middle ground of this debate might not turn out in big numbers leaving a tight call again. Anything less that a 5% majority and leavers will, rightly, ask for another go.

 

But what have you seen that makes you think the above sensible solutions will be employed? I've seen nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

And if that confirmatory referendum doesn't confirm anything, what then? Round and round we go.

 

We need a referendum like we need a hole in the head. the fed-up middle ground of this debate might not turn out in big numbers leaving a tight call again. Anything less that a 5% majority and leavers will, rightly, ask for another go.

 

But what have you seen that makes you think the above sensible solutions will be employed? I've seen nothing.

I've just said what I think they'll plump for. then we'll have a referendum to pick remain or EEA (for example) , the fed up might not vote, and the 226 million Remainers will and that will be that. Or it might edge to EEA (for example) and that is an existing model.

 

Whether a sensible solution will be employed by our representatives will have to be seen. But this is now last chance saloon. So they have to pick something in the next few weeks.

My proposal would be to keep doing the indicative until it was whittled down to the last one. We have to find consensus and go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Mail readeras are very angry about the Moog changing his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Daily Mail readeras are very angry about the Moog changing his mind.

They will carry on as they are. We can either join their silly games and name calling and finger pointing. Or we can put on our big boys and girls pants and do what every other person in the country has to do every day of their life. I don't give a sh*t about what Mogg or the Mail says. That type of politics is what has dogged this whole thing, and is also why the vast majority of the country are sick to the core of the current breed of politics we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, woodview said:

They will carry on as they are. We can either join their silly games and name calling and finger pointing. Or we can put on our big boys and girls pants and do what every other person in the country has to do every day of their life. I don't give a sh*t about what Mogg or the Mail says. That type of politics is what has dogged this whole thing, and is also why the vast majority of the country are sick to the core of the current breed of politics we have.

Which, perversely is why we ended up with brexit in the first place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nightrider said:

Not true. A pure link is fine, a link with an image of the text in the link may not be fine.

The "Link tax” in the Experiences of Germany, Spain and the Article 11 of the EC Proposal for the New Copyright Directive

 

"The Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger (LSR) - “ancillary copyright for press publishers” law –approved by the German Parliament in March 2013, introduced what has been defined a quotation tax, according to which a special new neighbouring right for press publishers is introduced, forcing news aggregators and search engines to pay a certain amount of money for the right to quote from German news publishers. 

 

The market’s response was peculiar under several points of view and illustrated perfectly how this was not the best tool to fix newspapers’ crisis. Google – who was the main untold recipient of the regulation - refused to pay for licenses from publishers and in the first period, opting out all them from its platform and forcing them to waive their right to compensation if they chose to opt back in. The abovementioned group of editors VG Media, which included the worldwide famous Axel Springer Group, decided to sue the Google News service, inducing Google to remove their articles from its results. Eventually, on the day before the schedule removal, VG Media decided to license their articles for free due to the decrease of almost the 40 % of the traffic generated from search engines to their websites. 

 

Following the example set by Germany, in November 2014 the Spanish Parliament approved a law that introduced a similar neighbouring right for news publishers. The newly introduced Article 32.2 of the Spanish Copyright Act “instituted a copyright fee to be paid by online news aggregators to publishers for linking their content within their aggregation services.” (11) The Spanish legislator though decided to make a step further, excluding the possibility for the publisher to opt out from receiving the payment by the aggregator: thus in this case, there is no possibility for Google to host Spanish articles under a free license, not even with the editors’ consent. (12) Compensations must be paid to the Spanish copyright collecting agency SGAE and any failure can lead to a fine up to € 600,000.

 

Google’s response to the new legislation has been as radical as the text of the law: in December 2014 it announced that the company was forced to shut down the Google News service in Spain, as “the new approach [of mandatory paid licensing] is simply not sustainable”, (13) removing all articles from Spanish newspapers and magazines from its database. Consequences have been dramatic for the publishing industry: a study commissioned in 2015 by the Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodical Publications (Asociación Española de Editoriales de Publicaciones Periódicas) found that the new law would effect news websites with a decrease of traffic of more than 6 % on the average and up to 14 % of the small publications, for an estimated loss of producer surplus of estimated €10 million per year. (14) Moreover, the study underlined how the provision afflicts mostly small publishers, altering the standard competition and net-neutrality."

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/link-tax-experiences-germany-spain-article-11-ec-proposal-tani

 

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Which, perversely is why we ended up with brexit in the first place!

It is yes! It's also one of the dangers of going back to the electorate with the same question. Like telling your kids to tidy their room, then when they come back ages later and say have they really got to do it, they get a firmer response....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.