Posts by Horizon

    The BBC has announced it's axing its Sunday lunchtime politics slot and making cutbacks at BBC Parliament.

    Meanwhile, BBC Parliament will no longer be on air during the weeks when the UK Parliament or the devolved Parliaments are not sitting.

    I like watching the Sunday politics shows on the Beeb, but after ITV axed Peston's Sunday show, it looks like the BBC is following suit, so I guess this is not too much of a surprise.

    The article goes on to say that BBC's Two's Daily Politics shows will get renamed to Politics Live in September and get reduced to 45 minutes, down from an hour. The Wednesday programme will be still be longer to include PMQs.

    On the reduction of the BBC Parliament programming, that makes sense when parliament is not sitting. Anyone can catch up on past sessions on iplayer.

    The government has survived an attempt by pro-EU Conservative MPs to change its post-Brexit trade strategy.

    The MPs wanted the UK to join a customs union if it does not agree a free-trade deal with the EU.

    They never give up, do they?

    So, if May gets her way, we'll be in the Customs union in all but name and if it her plans fails, then the MPs wanted us to stay in the customs uniform officially. We're screwed either way.:cursing::thumbdown:

    US President Donald Trump has said he accepts US intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election - despite declining to do so just a day ago.

    He said he had misspoken on Monday and had meant to say he saw no reason why it was not Russia that meddled.

    Trump said he had misspoken. Got a word wrong. Bullshit.

    I don't know whether he is in the pocket of Putin, or whether he is simply a idiot, but he's got to go.

    Unfortunately, I missed the vote tonight on the trade bill, but the government won the day. Unlike yesterday, the "rebels"today were the remainers this time, but they lost whereas the brexiteer rebels won. Anyone make any sense of this at all??

    Comcast is unlikely to make another bid for Twenty-First Century Fox's movie and television assets, focusing on a bid for Britain's Sky television, sources told CNBC's David Faber.

    Well, this bidding war for Sky may be over, but first some context.

    CNBC (owned by Comcast..) reported citing "sources" that Comcast is highly unlikely to put in another bid for Fox. The Fox shareholder vote to decide the bids is next week and if Comcast were to put in a higher bid for Fox than Disney, it needs to do it this week. As Murdoch has clearly stated that he wants to sell to Disney, it looks like Comcast has decided to pull out of the race for Fox.

    Onto Sky, on Friday, Disney filed a financial statement that said if Fox wanted to put in a higher bid for Sky, then Fox would need its (Disney's) permission and that permission may not be given.

    What seems to have happened is that either Comcast and Disney has spoken directly to each other, or, at least made signals to each other, that they don't want to tear themselves apart bidding for Murdoch's assets. They would have to take on too much debt, which neither company wants to do.

    So, it looks like Murdoch's companies will be split between the two of them with Disney getting the Fox film studio and Comcast getting Sky.

    Downing Street has accepted four amendments put forward by Brexiteer Tories to its Customs Bill.

    One of the amendments could stop the UK from collecting tariffs for the EU, part of Theresa May's Chequers plan which has upset some Tory MPs.

    Another change could rule out the EU's "backstop" on customs.

    May backed down on Reece-Mogg's and others amendments, she doesn't want a revolt yet. In a few weeks time parliament will be on recess and back in the Autumn when the DEAL will have been done.

    If someone is going to go against May, they need to do it now.

    US President Donald Trump has defended Russia over claims of interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    After a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Trump contradicted US intelligence agencies and said there had been no reason for Russia to meddle in the vote.

    Mr Putin reiterated that Russia had never interfered in US affairs.

    Here's the official story on this.

    Press conference just finished and Trump has sided with the Russians against the American intelligence agencies in front of Putin. Astonishing:!:X(

    Whether Trump is in Putin's pocket or not, is almost irrelevant now. He has broken the hippocratic oath of the office of the American president against his own country. I see an impeachment coming.

    Trump and Putin are just having their press conference after their meeting in Helsinki. Putin looks very happy. Before the meeting Trump criticised via one of his tweets, the charges laid against 12 Russians for meddling in the American elections saying it was a witch hunt. The Russians tweeted back saying they agreed with Trump.:)

    Amazon is preparing the next phase of its pay-TV attack on Sky with plans to unleash its own smart television set and elbow its way into more homes.

    The television, developed alongside a group of Chinese manufacturers including Huawei, is being confidentially tested by DTG, the industry body that maintains Britain’s digital terrestrial broadcast technical standards.

    The article goes on to say that Amazon's Prime Video Service in the UK isn't doing particularly well and Amazon has failed to attract big name UK broadcasters like the BBC onto its platform and it's struggling against the likes of Sky and VM.

    The tv will have a built in Freeview tuner, Alexa and Prime Video built into, but beyond that, it doesn't seem very smart to me.

    At the moment, the current Hollywood companies are busy merging with each other and other companies, in the wake of the threat faced by Netflix and Amazon. But as this snippet of information illustrates, the streaming companies may not have it all their own way and Amazon in particular, may not rule the world after all.

    Would you buy a Amazon smart tv?

    If we are forced to choose between full EU or full non-EU, then common sense and logic says we would be better following our biggest trading partners (ie. non-EU) and kick the declining trade with the EU into touch.

    Let me tell you how I thought the EU negotiations were going to play out and they still might, if we get a half decent PM.

    Before our referendum, a certain David Cameron went to Merkel and asked her for a better deal. She wasn't interested. Then the 2015 Syrian migration crisis happened and Hungary, Austria and others imposed border controls and put up barbed wire barriers. There all still there today.

    At that point, in my opinion, all the current EU treaties were dead, or at least due for a rewrite.

    I am pro EU in many regards. We have a shared culture with western European nations, their blood runs through us all, but there is a reason we don't speak French, German or the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore and that's because each likes to do its own thing. People choose to be different from each other. You cannot merge different peoples into the same country.

    If I were PM, I'd go to Brussels NOT Berlin and say the UK wants to control its own borders, laws and money and its high time the EU treaties were rewritten or scrapped and a new one written incorporating elements of past treaties. Basically, we should go back to being the EC and not the EU. The Germans taxpayers are ever increasingly tired of paying for the Med countries...

    Before the 2015 migration crisis, no one on the continent would've been interested in treaty rewrites, but if we said to the other countries that if the treaties were rewritten now, we would stay in the club and some of our money would be paid into club fees too. Oh, and our navy would sort out the Med crisis and blockade all the Libyan ports. I think the other countries might be interested.:) We know who would object, but with a strong leader we could overcome them.

    If the answer is no, our money and Galileo software upgrades goes with us, to name just a few things.

    We only need to make a product the EU standard if we're ACTUALLY going to sell it in the EU. Otherwise we should be free to make it to the standard that the customer wants, that might be CE or it might be something else entirely. e.g. UL and FCC.

    I fully agree, but under May's plan that won't happen as we'll be tied into the newly renamed "common" or "shared" (which is nothing of the sort) rulebook aka EU rules.

    I watched May on Andrew Marr, and she was pathetic. She more or less said that everything is non-negotiable with the EU.

    It may cause short term hardship on the UK (and even harder on the EU), but it's time we walked away from the EU. It would also stand us in good stead when negotiating with other countries, that we will not accept a bad deal ... from anyone!

    Most of our trade is done under WTO, and the taxpayer funded perks obtained by the 5% of UK businesses that trade with the EU is coming to an end. It will help our non-EU trade (which is the majority of our trade) enormously.

    Saw the Marr programmable last night.:thumbdown:

    Although Rob Alka didn't think Marr did a good job, I disagree with him. May did not want to answer his question when the alternative plan was devised.

    As Trump demonstrated with his hand holding her again, she is too weak. She ain't no Thatcher.

    The EU policy is unsustainable where a few countries pay and the remainder get paid to be members but still retain all the same 'benefits'. It guarantees that (eventually) they will all be bankrupted together, or the donor countries will leave as the EU expansionism continues and more recipients (costs) are added in their lust for power and control.

    It all went wrong with the ascension of the Eastern European countries into the EU. Before they joined, the Western European countries were broadly equal-ish. Germany was paying for its reunification then and so was not as dominate as it is today.

    As much as Britons love to go to France, Spain etc for a holiday, there aren't millions of us who want to live on the continent permanently and vice-versa. But Eastern Europe was under the Russian yolk for half a century and in so many ways, including economically, the Eastern European countries were behind the western ones. Therein lies the problem.

    At that point, the EU became about lifting the eastern countries up to the standard of the western ones and while Germany and France and others put temporary seven year controls on Eastern European migration, Tony Blair had other ideas... The rest is history.

    This is Germany (and maybe Macron's France too) commercially lobotomising EU member states that might be too competitive; in other words, a cartel of winners within a cartel of losers. It's one thing for Britain to be forcibly lobotomised but quite another to pursue a DIY lobotomy.

    I'm going to read all the rest of the alternative white paper excepts today, but the language between the two documents is very different. May's document talks about respecting the integrity of the single market and customs union, DD's document talks about doing what is in the UK's best interests to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Says it all really.

    The consequence of this demented hypocrisy is that, for example, if we invented a light bulb that, compared with the current enforced EU standard, was brighter for longer,yet consumed only 5% more energy (offset by a longer life), we would not be permitted to sell it to non-EU countries without EU approval.

    That's right, which is why Trump's idea of a carve up under May's plan is nonsense. We either abide by single market rules which May has renamed the common/shared rule book, or we don't.

    When was the last time you could read under a decent light? I still have a dozen old lightbulbs left.:)

    By our law, thanks to our wonderfully liberal judges, thought crime is illegal too.

    Number one is racism and it's the one thing I will not tolerate on this site and there is no exception to that, as some have found out...

    Our law is now too skewed to the extreme left/liberal agenda. You cannot express certain opinions now, as the courts would deem them hate crimes. The number one "crime" these days is being offensive. We all grow up with, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But the judges and the politicians who made the laws, see it differently. Being offensive under certain conditions is illegal by UK law.

    We have no freedom of expression laws in the UK and we do not have the right to air certain opinions, if they may offend certain people. Orwell was mentioned, well here's another one of his quotes, "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others." That just about sums it up and its not as if a certain politician from the past never foresaw such a situation, because he did.


    Note: If this topic strays into the subject of race, religion and immigration it will get merged into this thread:

    The Great Debate on Immigration, Race and Religion in the UK

    Please try to stay on the topic of political correctness, thank you.

    That second excerpt is interesting. It talks about "outcome equivalence" and you can see DD's thinking here. Here's the quote about it:

    Outcome equivalence is when two parties agree to achieve the same outcome with flexibility as to the method by which that outcome is achieved.

    Not abiding by the common rule book, but saying that ours and the EU's standards are high and we want to keep them high, but we make go about things differently. That's Brexit in a nutshell:!: