Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

eu in or out poll

What happens when you lot in UK need a visa to on holiday to Spain, Porto France etc? (bugger might mean me too! - I'm taking my French citizenship test!) Not going to be cheap that. Then there is the delay - might have to apply 3 months ahead of travel date.......no more nipping across the water on Ryanair for a dirty weekend :(

Just a thought??????

I think having to get a visa for the yearly family holiday to Spain will be the least of peoples worries if the UK doesnt get out! :crazy:

80 million impoverished Turks are about to get visa free access to the EU!!!! :wtf:

The current migrant crisis is quite possibly going to pale into insignificance when this new lot of legal migrants arrive! :?
 
To put this into context, and not withstanding Turks can't come to the UK visa free because the agreement is for Shengen. Turkey is wealthier (GDP / head) than Bulgaria or Romania. The UK has about 0.7% of the combined population of Bulgaria and Romania living here (ONS figures for 2015). If, despite being wealthier, the same percenatge of Turkey's population moved to the UK (which they can't because they don't have visa free travel), it would increase the UK population by 0.9%; for every 111 people currently here, there would be another person. But there won't be, because they don't have visa free travel to the UK. But it should give an idea about the impact on the rest of Europe. I'm guessing given the significant Turkish population in Germany that is where the bulk of potential migrants will head for.
 
Last edited:
Despite the rights and wrongs of whichever way this goes, my concern is the collapse of the U.K. as a union, if Britain leaves the EU.

England or the English may want out, yet Scotland and Wales may want in.

This will permanently divide the U.K. IMO.
 
Despite the rights and wrongs of whichever way this goes, my concern is the collapse of the U.K. as a union, if Britain leaves the EU.

England or the English may want out, yet Scotland and Wales may want in.

This will permanently divide the U.K. IMO.

Clive,I am pretty sure all the present members of the United Kingdom will see the sense of having a far bigger say in the way they lead their lives inside the UK rather than be dictated to by unelected commissioners in the EU.Pat
 
To put this into context, and not withstanding Turks can't come to the UK visa free because the agreement is for Shengen. Turkey is wealthier (GDP / head) than Bulgaria or Romania. The UK has about 0.7% of the combined population of Bulgaria and Romania living here (ONS figures for 2015). If, despite being wealthier, the same percenatge of Turkey's population moved to the UK (which they can't because they don't have visa free travel), it would increase the UK population by 0.9%; for every 111 people currently here, there would be another person. But there won't be, because they don't have visa free travel to the UK. But it should give an idea about the impact on the rest of Europe. I'm guessing given the significant Turkish population in Germany that is where the bulk of potential migrants will head for.

Where are you getting those figures from regarding Turkey's wealth? :icon-confused:

This is an interesting read and after reading it, how anyone can not see how utterly ridiculous and down right dangerous letting Turkey join the EU is, or even the visa free travel they are getting to start with, is beyond me. :crazy:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/how-recep-tayyip-erdogan-brought-the-eu-to-heel/
 
Clive,I am pretty sure all the present members of the United Kingdom will see the sense of having a far bigger say in the way they lead their lives inside the UK rather than be dictated to by unelected commissioners in the EU.Pat

I think Eire proved that membership can be beneficial for a "smaller" country Pat. It's no secret that there's a lot of support for Scottish independence and there's no reason for Wales not to think the same way if it finds itself outside the EU and at the same time discontent with the U.K.
 
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
Despite the rights and wrongs of whichever way this goes, my concern is the collapse of the U.K. as a union, if Britain leaves the EU.

England or the English may want out, yet Scotland and Wales may want in.

This will permanently divide the U.K. IMO.

I here you Clive that would be a nightmare ,

I know a lot of Scots and i have never met one that didn't vote for an independent Scotland , i truly believe that poll was fixed such is modern democracy . Wales i think would vote for independence out of national pride despite the fact they are about as foreign to England as a bloke from Manchester . It would be a third world country 3 weeks hence :icon-rolleyes:

I believe as one we would win through but divided we may as well put the whole island on ebay for sale .
 
Wales i think would vote for independence out of national pride despite the fact they are about as foreign to England as a bloke from Manchester . It would be a third world country 3 weeks hence :icon-rolleyes:

I don't think so. We only just voted for an assembly at the second time of asking (50.3% Yes). The Abolish the Welsh Assembly party got 44,000 votes in the regional assembly voting yesterday. UKIP did well with their main policy being to oppose the expansion of the Senedd. Opinion polls have shown 5-6% in favour of independence in recent years. Even if the EU money dries up I don't think the appetite is there to break from the rest of the Union. Might get some representation on the flag if it's redesigned if Scotland leave though!
 
I was told at my local voting station yesterday about an hour before it closed that out of an expected 1500 voters they had not yet seen 500 .

No doubt in independence poll would pull in droves which is terrifying when you consider i asked a bunch of 25ish year olds recently what they plan to do at the EU poll only to be asked in return what the EU was :shock:

I expect the turn out for the EU poll will be largest in Britain's history because for once we won't be deciding who gets paid to make no difference .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
Clive,I've thought some more about the countries in the Uk and see what you are getting at.In NZ there is the North Island with a large population and they rely on the South Island which has abundant electricity.good farming areas and a reasonable amount of industry.Less crime.I wouldn't mind betting that if we had a referendum on separating into two independent states,the south islanders would jump at the chance to go on their own.
 

I'm sure one of our resident electrical experts can confirm, but surely boiling water takes the same amount of energy, irrespective of current? High current will boil faster, but still use the same number of watts? I don't really see what is wrong with wanting to make more efficient use of electricity. It can't be nice living close to a coal fired powerstation. I don't even want to live under big windmill if I can avoid it.
 
You are probably right Rob, a lower wattage kettle will take longer to boil therefore it will have to be on for longer, I expect the same amount of energy will be needed to bring the water to the boil. Rich will be the man to give a definitive answer I think.
 
Last edited:
My point was

Sensibility refers to an acute perception of or responsiveness toward something, such as the emotions of another. This concept emerged in eighteenth-century Britain, and was closely associated with studies of sense perception as the means through which knowledge is gathered.

Twats know we can't get out .
 
And my point is, that no matter how sensible a change is, there are some people who will scream blue murder because of who is proposing the change.
 
You are probably right Rob, a lower wattage kettle will take longer to boil therefore it will have to be on for longer, I expect the same amount of energy will be needed to bring the water to the boil. Rich will be the man to give a definitive answer I think.
The kettle one is a good one. It is correct that it takes a set amount of energy to boil a set amount of water given the same conditions and start temperature. The thing is, every time you heat that water, unless you eliminate the losses of heat to the surroundings, the water will lose heat as it boils. So the quicker you heat it, the less it will lose to its surroundings. Take it to its extremes, if you put less energy into the water than it loses to its surroundings it will never boil.

Now, it is a small difference, but if you add to this the time wasted waiting for a slower kettle to boil, this adds up to a cost in efficiency and ultimately money. You could also have people leaving the kettle to go and use their time more efficiently, but then need to reboil the kettle because they missed it when it boiled. More loss of efficiency. So although there is a minuscule difference within the kettle itself, the knock on effects are far more costly.

The good news is that the cable could be thinner to the kettle and if we all switched over to less powerful kettles the instantaneous power consumption would be less…but it would be drawing that power for longer. The U.K. Power industry would be grateful for a reduced peak at the end of the Christmas episode of Eastenders (for example). But there would be no gain in efficiency, it would not be 'greener'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top