Bitpipe

To quote Big Ian, I am British but my cows are Irish.

Not yet maybe but they are determined to remove any prospect of judicial review of their actions in retaliation of the poroguation of parliament last year that was found to be unlawful by the UK Supreme Court. And always I fear with Boris that the veneer of incompetence hides something more unpleasant.

You must admit, they are giving it their best shot.

The NI dimension wrt Brexit is interesting (to me anyway given I'm from there). The referendum decision broke on religious grounds (as do most issues in NI) with nationalists / Catholics choosing to remain 85/15 and unionists / Protestants choosing to leave 60/40. As a whole, the region voted to remain 56/44. https://www.qub.ac.uk/brexit/Brexitfilestore/Filetoupload,728121,en.pdf Due to the requirements of the GFA, and the withdrawal agreement that came into effect Jan 2020 and last week's deal between Gove and his counterpart, there is now more friction between the east / west NI / GB border than between the north / south UK/Ireland border. The provision in the GFA to hold a 'border poll' (aka reunification) can only be activated if it's believed that a majority will vote for it. Polling shows that a hard Brexit makes voting to leave UK more likely - it's probably 50/50 at the moment with the last polling in Feb 2020 finding a narrow 1.5% in favour of staying. https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2020/02/24/news/border-poll-outcome-on-a-knife-edge-survey-suggests-1850028/ So in essence, by voting for Brexit, and a hard Brexit at that, the unionist community are accelerating the opposite to what they want. Personally I think any reunification would need consent of both communities (and the ROI) to have any hope of success and maybe in 5-10 years we may be at the point, especially if it means NI can fully rejoin the EU. Also needs to be said that any NI born citizen has dual nationality so they can benefit from all the freedom of movement granted to them with an Irish passport. There has been quiet but significant adoption of this in the unionist community. Many nationalists don't even bother with the UK passport now, and its about 40% more expensive too.

On reflection Jack this is what we should have requested. I'll bring it up at the site meeting today.

Do professional chefs yell at Masterchef? I need to know.

If we become self sufficient in food, who's harvesting it?

Our render contractor MD is back on site tomorrow, 5 years since the system went on, and hopefully we get resolution to this never ending issue - will update my other thread with any interesting nuggets but the incorrectly applied battens to appear to be the smoking gun.

Which brings me back to which property show is actually any good for the likes of us 'seasoned' self builders? Pre build, were fascinated by Grand Designs and glossy copies of Homebuilding magazine and trips to the NEC shows. Post build I struggle to watch any of them without shouting at the telly about airtightness, insulation and the like. The only shows I can vaguely tolerate are George Clarke (really his small homes series vs the current ugly nonsense) and Your Home Made Perfect with the VR headsets and the Belfast architect / new age shamen who is on a mission to introduce wall to wall benches in every house on the planet.

Human centipede springs to mind

Our renderboard was fixed horizontally in a brick bond style. How far apart are the splines? At a minimum, battens need to be fixed to these as I'm guessing the rest of the SIP panel is OSB? Is there a fixing to OSB that will give you more mechanical purchase? I found this resource but as ever it passes the buck .... (page 82) https://www.thesipcompany.com/assets/downloads/sta-sips-pocket-guide-aug2016.pdf Corrosion resistant fasteners from the cavity batten to the SIP panel are to be specified by the building designer so that they are suitable for both the loads and the SIP outer board thickness capacity.

They were standard 2400x1200 boards. The TF outer wall is panelvent (heavy duty MDF) covered in building paper but behind that are vertical structural ribs. They are what the panelvent attaches to and the frame manufacturer stapled the building paper to the panelvent with vertical seams of staples lined up with the ribs. The ribs are not perfectly uniform but the render team put the battens up at 400 centres. This meant that the majority of them are just screwed into MDF and not solid timber. The boards will want to expand and contract in heat/cold and the weight of the system will further pull on the battens with the result they have come loose from the underlying TF wall and are not providing any resistance to the board movement. There may also be an issue with the boards themselves, tbc. It must be said, the Parex system has flexed and bowed under the stress but shows no sign of failure itself (cracks etc) but obviously looks crap. So understand from your TF contractor WHERE the renderboard battens need to be attached to get proper purchase on the frame. Then MAKE SURE thats where they get attached by the render contractor. I'd also advise getting an anti fungal coating if offered as it does go a bit green/yellow in winter where the prevailing wind hits it. And understand what your warranty provision is from the render contractor. Hugh

I have a Parex render system (topcoat / base coat / mesh / base coat / renderboard / batten) on a TF wall and no expansion gaps were specified. I have had a lot of issues - render pillowed up and boards under are now cracked. Company committed to fix it. Initially I was worried that it was due to no expansion gap (which were not in design) but then find out none were needed. Instead it's incorrect fixing of battens to structural timber in the frame so they were able to pull through the outer skin.

As I said in the original post, no criticism was intended but it is an observation that I've seen made across international media and it seems to resonate with others here. Who says it's a bad thing? We've seen America exhibit the same characteristic (albeit in a less subtle fashion with the current administration). So no offence intended and apologies if you took such offence from my post.

I do love a German compound noun. Schoolboy favourite was Fernsehapparat and as an Erasamus student in Augsburg, Aufenhalterlaubnis. Not quite antidisestablishmentarianism but getting close.

Have to agree with that, there was a definite 'kicking the can down the road' attitude to continuing consent for EU membership which just made it easier to paint EU membership as negative. I would hazard a guess that this is because, due to continuing press and in particular tabloid demonisation of the EU (Boris Johnson played his part there as the Times' Brussels correspondent, freely admitting to just making up stories on bent bananas to fill his column and make mischief) no govt felt they could definitely win the factual remain vs emotional leave argument. Apart from Cameron - and even he was bounced into it by unexpectedly winning a majority. The EU is quite bad at promoting its positive contribution to economic and social life, and for the UK (and many other European) governments it was a useful scapegoat on which to hang national problems. Also, and this is not a criticism but an observation, the UK (or more correctly England) does not appear to like being in a club that it's not a dominant member of (Empire, Commonwealth, UK..). Fact was, UK was hugely influential in the EU - the voting decisions went its way over 95% of the time - and the smaller, like minded, net-contributor, nations of Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland etc. looked to the UK to successfully counterbalance the influence of France, Germany and the southern and eastern members.

I agree that the parliament swap is inefficient and something of a nonsense but the amount represents 0.1% of the annual EU budget or 1% of their annual admin budget. So if that's your reason to vote leave then it's a thin one. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg Our own govt managed to spend £10Bn more than necessary on PPE in just a few months back in March. Had they been prudent and stockpiled more than 2 months worth, as recommended by the pandemic 'war gaming' exercise they did a few years previously there would not have been the need for so much panic buying at inflated prices and gross profiteering in the supply chain. Chris Grayling alone seemed to get through £2Bn with his blunders over the last two years. And never mind the billions wasted on abandoned gov IT projects over the years. But these things happen in government - it's not 100% efficient, neither is business (I once worked on a project at a well known company that wasted $2Bn on a new consumer product that was shelved a few weeks after launch). This article is an interesting comparison of who paid what (both gross and relatively) in the last budget cycle ending 2020. UK were 5th on list per capita, 4th per GDP and 2nd gross amount after Germany. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318

The UK got a pretty decent return on its membership fee, CBI estimates 10:1 It also represented just under 1% of GDP or 2% of public spending. The reason for all of your latter issues are 100% down to the UK govt of the day and their approach to tax and spend.

I agree, didn't go the way I wanted either but it's as valid as any other decision the country has ever made. And yes, it's absolutely wrong to say that anyone voted Brexit is 'stupid' same as not everyone who voted remain was 'clever'. it is fair to point out that leave had a higher success rate in economically inactive segments (retired & unemployed) and with those of a lower educational level so that could be because they felt immune from the consequences, disenfranchised etc. What I've taken from the whole experience was that the leave argument was powerfully emotional (taking back control, sovereignty etc) and the remain argument was coldly factual. In effect they were speaking different languages so it's no surprise one can still not convince the other. My concern was that the vote was legislated as advisory (so did not require the statutory 60% supermajority) but was then treated as sacrosanct. Also, the end state of leaving was (and is still not) clear so while those who voted remain were voting for the status quo, those who voted to leave likely had a spectrum of end states in mind (from the 'Norway deal' to a hard exit). In the GFA referendum in NI in the late 90s, the hard negotiation came first and the people knew exactly what they were voting for (and there were some difficult to swallow compromises in there for all communities) so could not complain after. I made this point to Teresa May in person when she rang my doorbell one wet Jan afternoon in 2018 As a UK resident Irish citizen I obviously retain my EU citizen ship and remain free to live, work, travel and retire in the EU, as do my UK born kids who now have Irish passports. Ironically, we have more 'freedom' than our UK born peers.

Wow - that was a lucky escape!

There once was a fellow called Vine He liked to broadcast, time to time His deepest wish Was to let Brits fish But the EU got him hook, sinker and line

You got me there. It was worth a shot

Tariffs stopped being much of a barrier to trade a long time ago, with GATT and then the WTO doing an effective job at reducing them. For example, tariffs between USA and UK are very low to non existent which is why the proposed free trade deal had minimal economic impact - LSE estimated it at 0.16% boost for us. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/05/13/great-expectations-us-uk-trade-deal-will-most-likely-disappoint/ Most trade barriers are now regulatory in nature - does your product or service meet our standards and if so, how do we maintain that moving forward as our standards change? The EU has been successful in harmonising product safety standards across all member states, which requires each state to 'give up' national legislation and replace with adherence with the equivalent EU standards. Ditto environmental standards, data security, finance, aviation, nuclear safety etc, etc, etc. That efficiency requires a layer of 'management' as you put it. Friction is what restricts free trade and needing customs, quality and vet checks at points of entry and exit will cost money, time and for zero benefit. Many EU businesses will decide that it's not worth importing or exporting to UK given the extra hassle. Those car engines that travel back and forth during production and arrive at each destination 'just in time' will stay in the EU vs getting stuck in a queue at Dover. That UK manufacturer will find it harder to export to EU markets and will need to comply with EU standards anyway but now the UK has no voice in their creation. Remember that despite all the straight banana stories (often written by one Boris Johnson in his days as a journalist) the UK voted with the EU over 95% of the time.

Despite that being false (per reference above) it was also the ECHR which is nothing to do with the EU or the ECJ which can only rule on European Union law - i.e. to do with membership of the EU relating to the single market and four freedoms.

No, that is the UK Supreme Court - which we last saw in high profile action during the parliament prorogation saga. ECJ is (was) only for specific areas of law we agreed to devolve to the EU wrt agriculture, product, environmental standards etc. Also not to be confused with the EHCR which has a separate jurisdiction. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/ The ECHR and its court are part of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and the UK. The EU, on the other hand, consists of 27 Member States. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the body responsible for overseeing compliance with EU law within the EU.