Europe

[gaelic cowboy]

I seem to remember Brown and co being immensely worried about the world crashing back in 2007-2008.

Were there not big meeting pledging loadsa money to the world economy which apparently was in a critical state.

Course now that the banks in London have got there way ie corporate socialism they are no longer in favour of bailouts to the international system. Hence there demand for the printing of money from ECB

[Beskar]

i voted for the following changes:

1) The referendum lock
2) A United Kingdom sovereignty bill
3) A guaranteed say for MP’s if Ministers want the EU to extend its powers
4) Opt out from the charter of fundamental rights
5) Return of powers over criminal justice
6) Repatriation of control over social and employment legislation

I expect to see them done, as does 37% of the electorate, and the majority of tory MP's, and I am perfectly willing to see the UK go down in financial chaos from a collapsed government if they do not enact that exact plan.

Some of those issues are far more complicated then they appear to be, even Nick Clegg raised up a lot of the policies, such as the European Arrest Warrants, etc. Just "pulling out" will remove Britain from these things.

Also, a complete referendum lock would be unwise. While certain things such as Lisbon should have gone to a referendum, not everything has to. It would be an utter pain to have a referendum everyweek because someone wanted to wipe their behind in a cubical because they are French and wanted to use British tax-payer funded toliet paper. All the minor changes should only be done by the parliament as it actually is. Only major changes such be done to referendum.

Though 56% wanted European reform, should as elected European President, etc.

[Furunculus]

leverage is leverage, if the cons choose to apply it then those aims are readily achievable.

[Furunculus]

some refreshing german honesty about the ideological nature of the EU:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,695919,00.html


And yet, many governments continue succumbing to the siren-song of pure pragmatism.

It isn't Europe that is in crisis. Rather, the problem is the way the elites are handling this unique, once-in-a-millennium project. Commonality, enthusiasm and far-reaching goals have all vanished from European Union summits. One wonders what observers are to think of meetings that are preceded by days of open bickering among governments; that result in last-minute compromises smacking of horse-trading; that produce gigantic bailout packages, the size of which are simply inconceivable.

The ongoing EU accession negotiations with Turkey provide an example: No one has been upfront with Ankara that the country's accession to the EU would weaken the bloc as an union of shared values; that it would make the EU even less efficient; that it would dilute the EU and transform it into an alliance of mere economic convenience. Instead, despite the slow progress on reforms in Turkey, it is business as usual when it comes to the accession negotiations. Soon, it will no longer be possible to say "no" without triggering bitter disappointment.

The EU needs more honesty.

let me get this straight, when we are talking about euro-sceptic electorate it is merely the siren song of pragmatism, but when we are talking about turkey we admit that they must be kept out because they aren't good enough for our glorious european master-race.

rock on!

[Subotan]

I'm a Europhile, and I support Turkey's (Eventual) ascension to the EU...

[Beskar]

Actually, Furunculus, wouldn't you not want Turkey in the EU?

As it will drive down wages due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey, plus, more immigrants.

[Vladimir]

As it will drive down wages due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey, plus, more immigrants.

Don't say that. You'll make Fragony panic.

[Furunculus]

actually, i positively support turkey in the EU.

for they have earned their place by defending the front line of 'western' europe from soviet ideology and aggression for fifty years.

for another, i have no 'european' ambitions, so i care for nothing if turkey doesn't fit into some peoples definition of an ideal europe.

finally, the fact the turkey is so different that it will destroy any notions of creating a european demos, which as long as we are in danger of being sucked into, i am all in favour of.




let us be clear; i don't give a damn about immigration, my sole interest is that representative government actually represents the will of its people, and unlimited immigration is something that has pissed off a lot of british people.

[Furunculus]

interesting op-ed looking at european disunion sentiment within france, germany and spain:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7754168/The-European-Disunion-will-the-euro-survive.html

it rather confirms my belief that peoples are fundamentally different, and trying to centrally govern them is an absurdity that can only have two results; collapse or authoritarianism.

[Banquo's Ghost]

it rather confirms my belief that peoples are fundamentally different, and trying to centrally govern them is an absurdity that can only have two results; collapse or authoritarianism.

I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.

[Furunculus]

I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.

how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples

[Subotan]

China and India are good examples of "Civilisation States".

[Furunculus]

what is a civilisation state, and how is china a good example of anything to someone living in a western liberal democracy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.

The forging of the UK was something done by a narrow and privilaged elite, whom it would never directly advantage. You and I both know that all four countries suffered cultural persecution, economic trouble and bloody insurrection because of the Union.

So my question would be why certain Europhiles are trying to ramn the same thing through our individual governments, in order to cause the same pain? I though we had progressed beyond that.


how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples

To be fair, "Britishness" is really "Englishness, which is also adopted by anglicised peoples in the other two Kingdoms and the Principality. I don't think that, for example, the majority of the Welsh population feel the need to protect the "English" monarchy or what they see as the "English" parliament.

[gaelic cowboy]

China and India are good examples of "Civilisation States".

Hmm Civilisation States sounds like something from Samuel P Huntington's thesis on the Clash of Civilisation's not entirely sure what he is talking about either.

[Tellos Athenaios]

what is a civilisation state, and how is china a good example of anything to someone living in a western liberal democracy?

Well one can't deny that in China more than other countries there has been a persistent and concerted (political) effort to `push' a single elite (Han) culture, blotting out everything that isn't of the same culture.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The forging of the UK was something done by a narrow and privilaged elite, whom it would never directly advantage.
Should've been “who kept their position of power”. There's this illusion that the UK was some sort of rock solid monarchy and always has been. That illusion was forged then, that is the illusion of the UK, and it is a tradition invented to make the monarchy a bit more stable. In other words it benefited those in power; because the alternative -from their perspective- was their heads on public display severed from their body.

[Furunculus]

lest anyone be unaware of the current position of the american government on the EU, Biden's address to the European parliament:

"As you already know, ladies and gentlemen, not only am I pleased to be back here in Brussels for the second time as Vice President — as you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, DC as the “capital of the free world.” But it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.

As a lawmaker for more than 36 years in our Parliament, I feel particularly honored to address the European Parliament. President Obama and I were the first running mates in the last 50 years in America to make it to the White House from our legislative bodies. So we both come to our executive jobs with a deep appreciation for the work you do here in the bastion of European democracy.

Together with my former colleagues in the United States Congress, you and I represent more than 800 million people. Stop and think about that for a moment: two elected bodies that shape the laws for almost one-eighth of the planet’s population. That’s truly remarkable.

And now under the Lisbon Treaty, you’ve taken on more powers and a broader responsibility that comes with that increased influence. And we welcome it. We welcome that, because we, the United States, need strong allies and alliances to help us tackle the problems of the 21st century, many of which are the same but so many are different than the last century.

Let me state it as plainly as I can: The Obama-Biden administration has no doubt about the need for and strongly supports a vibrant European Union. We believe it’s absolutely essential to American prosperity and long-term security. So have no doubt about that.
As i said, America will do everything it can to push Britain into a federal EU for two reasons:
1. to make the EU effective
2. to make the EU anglophile

I'm remain an anglophile well in advance of any european sentiment, but on this one don't expect us to rollover just to keep the US feeling nice and secure!

[gaelic cowboy]

lest anyone be unaware of the current position of the american government on the EU, Biden's address to the European parliament:

As i said, America will do everything it can to push Britain into a federal EU for two reasons:
1. to make the EU effective
2. to make the EU anglophile

I'm remain an anglophile well in advance of any european sentiment, but on this one don't expect us to rollover just to keep the US feeling nice and secure!

Your position assumes that America will remain Anglophile in the future I would posit this is a dangerous place to hang your coat.

[Furunculus]

the level of intelligence and technology cooperation between the US, UK, Oz and Canada is pretty fundamental, i don't see that changing any time soon.

[gaelic cowboy]

I thinking more population wise USA will experience a more hispanic/mexican future hell some people are even trying to legislate aginast it in Arizona. Its not neccessarily a given the the USA will care a fig for Britain's strategic future as she orients even more to the south and east the west ie the old world will decline in importance.

So Britain does not want anything to do with Europe thats fine just dont assume as junior partner that your input is required for the future just cos it was useful in the past.

[Furunculus]

i'm not afraid of britain carving it own path in the world (albeit one in close cooperation with Europe), because as long as we retain the second most potent expeditionary capability (and the will to employ it) we will be a valuable partner, and we will always be a useful link between the two halves of NATO.

[Furunculus]

Hague just delivered a terrific speech on Foreign Policy, lets hope the words match the deeds:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/10540/william_hague_declares_shift_in_foreign_policy_%28full_speech%29.html


.....................For although the world has become more multilateral as I have described, it has also become more bilateral. Relations between individual countries matter, starting with our unbreakable alliance with the United States which is our most important relationship and will remain so. Our shared history, value and interests, our tightly linked economies and strong habits of working together at all levels will ensure that the US will remain our biggest single level for achieving our international goals.

.....................Furthermore within groupings such as the EU, it is no longer sensible or indeed possible to focus our effort on the largest countries at the expense of smaller members. Of course France and Germany remain our crucial partners which is why the Prime Minister visited them in his first days in office. But for the UK to exert influence and generate creative new approaches to foreign policy challenges we need to look further and wider. The EU is at its best as a changing network where its members can make the most of what each country brings to the table. We are already seeking to work with many of the smaller member states in new and more flexible ways, recognising where individual countries or groupings within the EU add particular value. To take just one example, newer member states which were formerly under Soviet control have a wealth of experience of the transition to democracy after decades of dominion which they could share with EU candidate countries and others further afield. That should be built into the European Union’s approach to common foreign and security policy.

................I have begun discussing how we could form an initiative in this area with the Foreign Ministers of some of these countries. We should also see the value of Turkey’s future membership of the European Union in this light. Turkey is Europe’s biggest emerging economy and a good example of a country developing a new role and new links for itself, partly on top of and partly outside of existing structures and alliances and is highly active in the Western Balkans, the wider Middle East and Central Asia. We will make a particular diplomatic effort to work with Turkey, starting with a major visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister to Britain next week at my invitation.

................And fifth, we are determined as a Government to give due weight to Britain’s membership of the EU and other multilateral institutions. It is mystifying to us that the previous Government failed to give due weight to the exercise of British influence in the EU. They neglected to ensure that sufficient numbers of bright British officials entered EU institutions, and so we now face a generation gap developing in the British presence in parts of the EU where early decisions and early drafting take place. Since 2007, the number of British officials at Director level in the European Commission has fallen by a third and we have 205 fewer British officials in the Commission overall. The UK represents 12% of the EU population. Despite that, at entry-level policy grades in the Commission, the UK represents just 1.8% of the staff, well under the level of other major EU member states. So the idea that the last government was serious about advancing Britain’s influence in Europe turns out to be an unsustainable fiction. Consoling themselves with the illusion that agreeing to institutional changes much desired by others gave an appearance of British centrality in the EU, they neglected to launch any new initiative to work with smaller nations and presided over a decline in the holding of key European positions by British personnel. As a new Government we are determined to put this right.

looking good..........

[Subotan]

I am much more pleased by the first inkling's of the Coalition's Europe policy than I thought I would be. Isn't that strange? Although with point five, let us hope that a change in policy doesn't just result in monoglot, Eurosceptics being stuffed into posts rather than people who want and can do the job :yes:

[Furunculus]

I am much more pleased by the first inkling's of the Coalition's Europe policy than I thought I would be. Isn't that strange? Although with point five, let us hope that a change in policy doesn't just result in monoglot, Eurosceptics being stuffed into posts rather than people who want and can do the job :yes:

as hannan has often noted, it is often the europhiles who are monoglot, and it is both a cheap and innaccurate slur to label skeptics of EU federalism as monoglots.

[Subotan]

I was referring to the likes of Ashton with the monoglot reference that Eurosceptics, hence why I put Eurosceptics in as well.

[Furunculus]

a belated birthday wish for the ECR, and for the sceptics who doubted it would last a year.:balloon2:

but just so you're not disappointed here's a little controversy for you:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-10-proud-of-ecr-group.html


No 10: "Proud" of the ECR Group
Iain Dale 12:24 PM

Yesterday I blogged about the rows in the European Conservatives & Reformists Group following a meeting with David Cameron in which it was agreed that in future the group would be led jointly by Michal Kaminski and Timothy Kirkhope. I've just had an on the record comment from a Number Ten spokesman on the issue.


"We remain completely committed to the success of the ECR group. We are proud to have set it up and proud of its progress so far. As far as the leadership is concerned, clearly it must command the support of the group's members."

I asked if the whole issue was indeed raised at the meeting at Number 10 between Cameron, Kaminski and Kirkhope. The spokesman replied: "Yes, it came up and discussions are underway in Brussels. Clearly it is important that the leadership commands the support of the group and the parties concerned."

I asked about the Czechs and whether it was important for them to support the changes and the answer was: "Yes, of course".

On the face of it, this is rather bland and what you might expect Number Ten to say. But the statement goes out of its way to make clear that they are committed to the ECR group and its future.

Sources tell me that there have been murmerings about Kaminski's leadership of the group for some time and that there have been concerns about his workrate, and this is what lay behind Kirkhope's move.

In some ways I am surprised at how few ructions this has caused. Several MEPs I have talked to believe that the initial kerfuffle will be as bad as it gets and that it is already dying down.

[Beskar]

[removed]

[Furunculus]

is that spam, or is there some cryptic message in there?

[Vladimir]

is that spam, or is there some cryptic message in there?

"But the statement goes out of its way to make clear that they are committed to the ECR group and its future."

Maybe?

[Louis VI the Fat]

a belated birthday wish for the ECR, and for the sceptics who doubted it would last a year.:balloon2:

Happy Birthday ECR!


And my continued good luck to the UK Conservatives with Kaminsky! Been following what Cegorach lately has been writing about Poland and Law and Justice?

Poland now has got a conservative, centre-right, neoliberal PM and President - to which the UK Conservatives now no longer have ties. They are, instead, stuck with their boy Kaminsky - a 'has-been' who belongs to the populist Polish Fruitcake Party which just got it on the chin from educated, western, cosmopolitan, hard-working Poles who are not interested in his rubbish anymore.

[Vladimir]

Kaminsky? Do you mean this guy?

https://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4092/kaminsky.jpg (https://img821.imageshack.us/i/kaminsky.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

[Furunculus]

Happy Birthday ECR!


And my continued good luck to the UK Conservatives with Kaminsky! Been following what Cegorach lately has been writing about Poland and Law and Justice?

Poland now has got a conservative, centre-right, neoliberal PM and President - to which the UK Conservatives now no longer have ties. They are, instead, stuck with their boy Kaminsky - a 'has-been' who belongs to the populist Polish Fruitcake Party which just got it on the chin from educated, western, cosmopolitan, hard-working Poles who are not interested in his rubbish anymore.

a has-been from a party that polled 48% of the presidential vote?

[cegorach]

a has-been from a party that polled 48% of the presidential vote?

Yes which of course means that 48% of voters support the party not the candidate... or not.

But another test is just ahead - in October there will be municipal elections.

Uusally the crushing majority of votes are grasped by local associations and citizen organisations which leaves parties with one way to test their popularity and one reason to declare victory.

Namely - in how many CITIES is it able to win.


Good luck with that!

[Furunculus]

don't get your knickers in a twist Cegorach, I am quite happy with the presidential result and prefer their politics in the main.

my support for law and justice is restricted to their MEP's political affiliation in brussels, because the EU to me is foriegn policy so i prefer the Conservatives european party to be stuffed with like-minded anti-federalists.

that is all.

[cegorach]

Good to hear that.


BTW In a weird twist it is now Poland where politicians talk about 'controversial' allies in the European Parliament.

'Controversial allies' but this time of the Law and Justice i.e. the Tories who are criticised for their attitude towards the CAP, British rebate and other ideas and projects.


As much as I was against the stupid witchhunt against Mr. Kamiński* in this case it is usually valid criticism addressing a number of differences in priorities between the UK and Poland, which I might add are growing.

It looks like Britain will gradually become a sort of European 'bad boy' to the public opinion.




* To me he is and was a fat, arrogant, lying bastard, but that would be all.
I don't need to invent accusations the way it was in the UK quoting sentences out of context and against facts or background.

[Furunculus]

It looks like Britain will gradually become a sort of European 'bad boy' to the public opinion.


hehe, i can live with that.:balloon2:

[Meneldil]

how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.The nation state does exist, but not as a tangible object.

An abstract concept does not need to have perfect boundaries, everything within being part of it, everything outside, not. 'Within' consisting here of historical, social, physical, territorial, demographic delineations.


I, for one, can with great accuracy tell what, and who, belongs to the British nation state and what to the Thai nation state.
A nationstate is better thought of as a few 'centres of gravity', that pull people, places and history together. Even if these centres are prone to shift, even if are no clear boundaries, even if other centres exist too which exert their influence over the same objects, one can still identify and construct (two verbs with near identical meanings in this instance) nation states.



There is an irony in that if a cross-channel Norman - England state construct would've survived, inhabitants of Kent and Caen would now desperately insist that they have absolutely nothing in common with Scots or Burgundians respectively, and that it is simply preposterous to think they should ever form a nation with 'them'.
Or, closer in time, if Ireland would still be part of the UK, national narratives would've evolved completely different than they have been constructed since 1922

[Furunculus]

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.

while what you say sounds lovely in an abstract political science kind of way, i laugh at this wonderful abstraction as an irrelevance at a time with europeoan integration is violently rejected by germans having to pay greeks.

Louis descibes it quite well.

[Furunculus]

Hannan on the double standard that exists between europhiles and skeptics when it comes to tolerence of activities of their more eccentric members:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100049547/supporters-of-the-eu-can-be-as-xenophobic-as-they-like-and-no-one-will-call-them-extreme/

Supporters of the EU can be as xenophobic as they like, and no one will call them extreme

Is it “far Right” to posit a link between immigration and crime? Can a mainstream political party demand that legal immigrants have their nationality stripped away if they commit certain offences? Can it argue that juvenile offenders should be denied nationality when they reach adulthood? Can it couple such a campaign with proposals to dismantle gipsy camps and expel Roma?

Nicolas Sarkozy borrows Le Pen's language, but backs Brussels

The answer, it seems, depends on whether the party in question supports political integration in Europe.

You can imagine what The Guardian would be saying if one of the Conservatives’ allies in the European Parliament started making such noises. (Actually, you don’t have to imagine: read this for a flavour of how deranged that newspaper has become on the issue). But when it’s Nicolas Sarkozy, that’s different. His party, the UMP, is in the EPP, and so cannot possibly be extreme, for all that it sits alongside a number of parties with anti-American, anti-gypsy, protectionist and homophobic tendencies (see here for a selection).

This really shouldn’t need saying but, in most parties, you will find good and bad people. A few minutes with Google will reveal some hair-raising statements from minor figures attached to virtually every political movement in Europe. I’m getting slightly sick of the double standard whereby support for the EU serves as a magical vaccination against accusations of extremism, whereas Euro-scepticism reverses the burden of proof.

Plenty of fascists, from the 1930s onwards, have wanted a federal Europe: Oswald Mosley, for example, was an obsessive Euro-zealot, whose final act in politics was to campaign for a “Yes” vote in 1975. This obviously doesn’t mean that all Europhiles are secret Nazis; but it would be nice if they acknowledged, just occasionally, the liberal, internationalist and democratic case against the EU.

he has a point, the number of people singling out the ECR for containing fruitcakes, even here, when the other big euro parties are exactly the same if not worse.

a wonderful godwin from the guardian:

Although the fringe event was carefully stage-managed – terse political lines trotted out and limited time for questions – there was one unfortunate mistake. The basement room in which delegates gathered to hear the controversial Tory allies was in Manchester’s Midland Hotel, a building Hitler is said to have liked so much that he would have made it his northern residence if he had invaded.

[Beskar]

It depends.

There is not only the goal, but the means to get there. There is also the similarity in goals, which lead to completely different situations.

Let's say two people are working towards world peace:
One person wants lets say America, to conquer the world, with the end result of everyone being lorded over by the United Global Federation.
Another person wants the UN to become stronger, with more countries falling into line, spreading human rights, civil rights, and other things across borders, and eventually ending up with the United Global Federation.

These two things are completely different, but they share a similar goal.

There is also another case too. Two people share the same goal on one thing, but another goal on another.

Person A is convinced to follow things via Person B, so they campaign together to bring world peace through the United Global Federation. However, Person A is still more militarist than Person B, so while a rogue naughty state needs a speanking, Person A might advise invading them, while Person B uses other measures. Should Person B be tainted because of Person A's view on that matter?

These are the questions.

[Furunculus]

so people who believe that the nation state, cooperating with its neighbours, is the best vehicle to meet the needs of its people are automatically vilified, whereas those who feel otherwise are not...........?

[Beskar]

Wrong thread.

[Beskar]

so people who believe that the nation state, cooperating with its neighbours, is the best vehicle to meet the needs of its people are automatically vilified, whereas those who feel otherwise are not...........?

I apologise, I don't get your comment in the context of what I was saying.

[Furunculus]

lol, i'm interpreting your post as a response to my hannan article, never mind. :)

[Beskar]

Oh, it had links to that.

I was saying, we should really identify people with who they are in bed with, when it comes to a certain issue. Tthis isn't a comment of Double standards, I have never attacked the Tories for being in the same group as 'Law and Justice' and other groups.

While some people have, my post was more of a comment of "Even though some might share a goal, it doesn't mean they believe the same thing or the same means". It was attacking pretty much everyone who is attacking people solely on who they are affiliated with on this issue.

I think the mix-up happened because of possibly the example I used. If anything, I was supporting your argument in the article, by saying just because some one says the same thing, doesn't mean they agree in other areas.

For a more example, it is like the BNP praising the merits of eating 5 a day. You might agree this is a good point, but it doesn't mean because you and the BNP agree that 5 fruit/veg is good for you, you want to bring about an all white Britain.

[Furunculus]

Guardian columnist is bemoaning the anglospheres dominance of the interwebs, for it prevents the political class from fixing the publics gaze on european issues:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100051187/the-internet-is-gradually-reorienting-britain-away-from-europe-and-toward-the-anglosphere/



The Internet is dragging Britain away from Europe and towards the Anglosphere

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: August 20th, 2010

The EU is being made redundant by technological change. In the 1950s, a regional trade association arguably made sense. But in a world where capital surges around the globe at the touch of a button, physical proximity becomes irrelevant. When deciding whether to invest in a country, corporations will consider many factors – tax rates, regulation, language, corruptibility of public officials – before they worry about geography.

The Internet makes it as easy for my constituents to do business with a company in New Zealand as with a company in Belgium. Easier, indeed, because the Kiwi company shares our common law, accountancy practices, commercial traditions and language.

This point last was more or less conceded by Martin Kettle in this morning’s Guardian. Kettle regrets the phenomenon, and complains that the Internet has left us “trapped in the Anglosphere”:

The online information age, which should, in theory, have been expected to facilitate greater mental and cultural pluralism and thus, among other things, greater familiarity with European languages and cultures, has, in practice, had the reverse effect. The power of the English language, at once our global gift and our great curse, discourages us from engaging with those outside the all-conquering online Anglosphere.

He goes on to note, disconsolately, that we are more familiar with political developments in Australia than in Europe. Well, duh! Australians are, as Kipling might have put it, folk of our own blood and speech. We share a head of state; we watch the same TV; we visit each other regularly, often to see relatives. Both the candidates in the Australian election were born in Britain, for Heaven’s sake. How could we not be interested?

The Internet, as Douglas Carswell argues, is ironing out a kink in our cultural and political alignment, whereby a small elite artificially reoriented our foreign policy, our trade and even our news cycle away from our old alliances and towards Europe. That’s the great thing about the web (or, from a Europhile perspective, the disagreeable thing): it democratises.

Let me reassure Martin Kettle that I am one of those Britons who follows European news daily, online, and in languages other than English. One of the things this has taught me is that we are not alone in being pulled, by our history and geography, towards other continents: Spanish newspapers, for example, are as interested in Cuba and Argentina as British ones are in the US and Australia.

The community of English-speaking nations is, potentially, the greatest force for freedom in the world. But, for the past 40 years it has been ignored by its constituent governments. Not any more. Truly the Internet is a wonderful phenomenon.


will it prove harder to make british people feel european in the 21st century than it was in the 20th?

[Furunculus]

rather disappointing that Teresa May let the european arrest warrant slide through, looks like it is already approaching a farce:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7969458/Sublime-to-the-ridiculous-new-cases-in-the-extradition-courts.html

[Vladimir]

Is this the right thread for this? Forty-Four pages is a lot to sift through.

Stocks fall on European debt fears (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/default.aspx?feat=1801242&GT1=33009)

[Furunculus]

Conservative Party Conference -


The Foreign Secretary also promises to legislate a "sovereignty clause on EU law" to "place on the statute book this eternal truth: that what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can undo."

Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are copying Germany at last. :D



link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8045972/Conservative-Conference-William-Hague-plans-to-confirm-Parliaments-pre-eminence.html

[Furunculus]

there is apparently a ruckus going on inside the ECR; kaminski who the guardian spent so long trying to tar as an extremist is now accusing his fellow countrymen in Law and Justice of being too extreme:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8147249/David-Camerons-Euro-alliance-in-turmoil.html

awesomely funny business. :D

[Furunculus]

It looks like the european peoples party, the previous home of the british conservatives, are becoming distinctly uncomfortable at having to defend Hungary's Fiduz party of recent fame:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,740400,00.html

remember the narrative that the ECR would be a home for fruitcakes, and the Tories were daft to leave the EPP given that it was the home for sanitised and family-friendly right-wing politics................?

it was a daft then, and only exposed even more so as a daft idea today.

p.s. the ECR has not collapsed in anarchy for over 18 months now, whodathunkit!

[Vladimir]

Family friendly fruitcakes? Sorry, I don't get that.

[Furunculus]

family-friendly - i.e. not swivel-eyed little fascists
fruitcakes - dangerous lunatics in the political sense

[Subotan]

mary mother of god this thread is still alive

Idk enough about Hungarian politics to comment on how much the alleged authoritarianism is true, but it's pretty worrying. That said, the EPP don't really have much choice, since the Hungarian currency is pegged to the Euro, and kicking Fiduz out of the EPP could only worsen the current Euro-zone crisis.

[Idaho]

family-friendly - i.e. not swivel-eyed little fascists
fruitcakes - dangerous lunatics in the political sense

You're talking to a Russian. What we consider dangerous lunatics, they see as national saviours.

[gaelic cowboy]

This has all happened before remember that fella I think his name was Jorge Haider or summit in Austira didnt the EU members almost threaten to shun Austria if his party served in government.

I forget what they did that time but it passed eventually

Oh and might as well mention it here general election announced for march 11 in Ireland this morning after six serving ministers resigned.

[Furunculus]

This has all happened before remember that fella I think his name was Jorge Haider or summit in Austira didnt the EU members almost threaten to shun Austria if his party served in government.

Oh and might as well mention it here general election announced for march 11 in Ireland this morning after six serving ministers resigned.

the difference is that old Jorg's party was not affiliated with the EPP, they were non-inscrits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Inscrits

cheers for the update.

[Furunculus]

the org's favourite autarchic hyper-nationalist is off to forieg parts once again, no doubt to shout objectionable and racist things at johnny foreigner.

i mention this because it is almost the second anniversay of the ECR, and since we all expect it to collapse at any second i thought i'd go out with a hurrah!

so, while i am soaking up sun and icyy cold lager on the battlements of valletta i wish for you to consult among yourselves and come up with an excuse for why the predictions of ECR doom have not already come good..........

all the best.

[Kralizec]

Good for them, I suppose.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The ECR, that is the British Conservatives ruled by the Polish nationalists. Meanwhile the Poles have been decimated at home, as Cegorach was so kind to point out some time ago. This leaves the British Conservatives impotent, isolated, and in a fragile group in Europe.

A sad record for the Conservatives, who currently govern one of the three main European powers and who by default should be among the most influential political parties in Europe.

It is all a bit silly. Not much there to be triumphant about.

[Fragony]

The ECR, that is the British Conservatives ruled by the Polish nationalists. Meanwhile the Poles have been decimated at home, as Cegorach was so kind to point out some time ago. This leaves the British Conservatives impotent, isolated, and in a fragile group in Europe.

A sad record for the Conservatives, who currently govern one of the three main European powers and who by default should be among the most influential political parties in Europe.

It is all a bit silly. Not much there to be triumphant about.

Mwah looks like Le Pen is going to shake things up a bit, obviously no friend of the EUtopia, bet the aparatski seats are a bit sweaty, no France no unchecked Brussels

[Kralizec]

Come on Louis, the ECR has managed to continue its existence for two years. Surely that's an impressive achievement on their part.

[Furunculus]

Come on Louis, the ECR has managed to continue its existence for two years. Surely that's an impressive achievement on their part.

i very much agree.

on that note; who feels that the ECR would be supportive of the notion of eurozone fiscal federalism on the notion that it would shift public support in favour of an EEA/EU or EEA/EFTA referendum?

http://www.brugesgroup.com/EFTAorTheEU.pdf

[Beskar]

I have gone further and discovered more about definitions to explain my brand of European Federalism. The definition of Regionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28politics%29) goes a long way to what I would see happen to the Nation States of Europe. They would dissolve into regions which are administrated locally but tied together in a federation at a European level which only deals with matter concerning the top-level, such as Foreign policy.

This would multiply the many states of Europe into local regions which various populace would like to manage themselves opposed to being completely managed by a bunch of random guys in Brussels so while we all embrace a European identity, we have our own local flavours and diversity which is part in making Europe so great.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have gone further and discovered more about definitions to explain my brand of European Federalism. The definition of Regionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28politics%29) goes a long way to what I would see happen to the Nation States of Europe. They would dissolve into regions which are administrated locally but tied together in a federation at a European level which only deals with matter concerning the top-level, such as Foreign policy.

Naw we had that already here and it didnt work out too well

[Beskar]

Naw we had that already here and it didnt work out too well

Could I possibly beg you for more details?

[gaelic cowboy]

Could I possibly beg you for more details?

1916
war of independence
civil war
the troubles
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc


and the big one which even today has an effect on our society

an Gorta Mór


ok so it's hyerbole but the point stands regionalism didnt work out well for Ireland

[Furunculus]

I have gone further and discovered more about definitions to explain my brand of European Federalism. The definition of Regionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28politics%29) goes a long way to what I would see happen to the Nation States of Europe. They would dissolve into regions which are administrated locally but tied together in a federation at a European level which only deals with matter concerning the top-level, such as Foreign policy.

This would multiply the many states of Europe into local regions which various populace would like to manage themselves opposed to being completely managed by a bunch of random guys in Brussels so while we all embrace a European identity, we have our own local flavours and diversity which is part in making Europe so great.

regionalism is generally meant to apply to nation-states, with greater subsidiarity from within that unit, not to con/federations where there is no identity at all, and the attempt becomes one of manufacturing a new 'loose' euro identity.

[Beskar]

regionalism is generally meant to apply to nation-states, with greater subsidiarity from within that unit, not to con/federations where there is no identity at all, and the attempt becomes one of manufacturing a new 'loose' euro identity.

The 'loose' Euro identity already exists, at least in the younger population and similar for older population as well, but they simply have stronger identities competing for air-time.


Proponents of regionalism say that strengthening a region's governing bodies and political powers within a larger country would create efficiencies of scale to the region, promote decentralization, develop a more rational allocation of the region's resources for benefit of the local populations, increase the efficient implementation of local plans, raise competitiveness levels among the regions and ultimately the whole country, and save taxpayers money.

Admittedly, sounds like something you would support Furunculus, in many ways.


Arguments against regionalism
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

[Furunculus]

Proponents of regionalism say that strengthening a region's governing bodies and political powers within a larger country would create efficiencies of scale to the region, promote decentralization, develop a more rational allocation of the region's resources for benefit of the local populations,
Admittedly, sounds like something you would support Furunculus, in many ways.

i am all for decentralisation within the larger country of Great Britain.

[Furunculus]

are the european conservatives and reformists going to break into germany?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9990805/Tories-build-secret-alliance-with-Eurosceptics-behind-Merkels-back.html

be careful frau merkel! :D

and too think people thought this would last six months?

[Husar]

Pat Condel on the ultra-undemocratic European Union http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6597130/c3ca5157/europe_the_theft_of_democracy.html

Hear hear

That's why I want Russia to conquer us all.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/USyyRGO.jpg

[Fragony]

https://i.imgur.com/USyyRGO.jpg

Redicule is 100% normal. It always goes like that, first redicule, then hostility, then just not accepting that someone was right from the go. Nigel Farrage is the only polititician you have that is awake and aware, I would vote UKIP if I could. The EU is extremily creepy and deeply undemocratic, borderline fascist. Sad truth.

[InsaneApache]

Here's something for you EU fascists to ponder on......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV3nOAg87R8&feature=em-uploademail

Frag beat me too it. :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Great minds think alike

[Kadagar_AV]

http://www.cracked.com/video_18534_the-easy-answer-to-one-oldest-moral-dilemmas.html

I think that's how I would react too...

[Beskar]

Here's something for you EU fascists to ponder on......

Sure, if you conduct a one-sided argument with no leeway, you can make anything sound convincing. que that drunk guy at the pub who rants away as if he discovered sliced bread. Apparently as some one who speaks in favour for a European Union and reforming the current EU to make it more democratically accountable, I simply don't exist as an option in his rant as I am a liar and hate democracy. There is also absolutely no points on the great many positives of being within the EU either, which taken in the context of his rant would make it a little silly.

[Beskar]

you can't support the EU while calling yourself a democrate

You can. You talk about the EU as a construct which you are generally in favour for, and you talk about reforming the EU to make it better, such as increasing democratic accountability. The problem with the EU is that policy gets dictated by Merkel, Cameron and the like behind the scenes and not in the represented bodies who have to rubber stamp policy coming from the self-interest of powerful members of the Union. The increase of 'nationalism' actually gives more body to these individuals and works against a democratic union. It is like complaining about Oligarchy by voting to give more power to the Oligarchs, it makes no baffling sense. Giving more power to elected officials and voicing this at home will force the oligarchs to concede power or face repercussions.

Also in old idiom sayings, voting for the 'out of EU' parties is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Fragony]

You can. You talk about the EU as a construct which you are generally in favour for, and you talk about reforming the EU to make it better, such as increasing democratic accountability. The problem with the EU is that policy gets dictated by Merkel, Cameron and the like behind the scenes and not in the represented bodies who have to rubber stamp policy coming from the self-interest of powerful members of the Union. The increase of 'nationalism' actually gives more body to these individuals and works against a democratic union. It is like complaining about Oligarchy by voting to give more power to the Oligarchs, it makes no baffling sense. Giving more power to elected officials and voicing this at home will force the oligarchs to concede power or face repercussions.

Also in old idiom sayings, voting for the 'out of EU' parties is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The EU is little bit to happy with getting under someone's skirt. And they are frankly unnecesary, everything allready worked.

[Beskar]

The EU is little bit to happy with getting under someone's skirt. And they are frankly unnecesary, everything allready worked.

Fragony, nothing has ever worked. That is more accurate~

It is all about making it working a little bit better than the attempt before it.

[Greyblades]

I dont know, the Roman empire was pretty successful for afew hundred years.

[Fragony]

Fragony, nothing has ever worked. That is more accurate~

It is all about making it working a little bit better than the attempt before it.

They thought that in 1848 as well. The EU will be the cause of war, not the answer to it.

They brought the cold war with Russia back, who denies that is an idiot.

[InsaneApache]

I'm sure this isn't the right thread, however as you are well aware the British were never told that the Common Market meant being subsumed into a federal Europe. If you think that's democratic then you need to see a doctor.

[Been moved to 'Right' thread.]

[Beskar]

They brought the cold war with Russia back, who denies that is an idiot.

Actually, it is no way as simple as that. That was more Team America than the EU and also Putinism, so in short "they didn't" but that is not to resolve them of responsibility for their involvement in the matter.

[Beskar]

I'm sure this isn't the right thread, however as you are well aware the British were never told that the Common Market meant being subsumed into a federal Europe.

That is a fair comment. We were unfortunately robbed of that, and we unfortunately don't have much of a federal Europe worth voting for either. It is the worst of both worlds.

[Fragony]

Actually, it is no way as simple as that. That was more Team America than the EU and also Putinism, so in short "they didn't" but that is not to resolve them of responsibility for their involvement in the matter.

For your consideation, who casted the dye really [url]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ[/url
No way Russia could not have reacted.
The EU caused this, EU army?.

Vefhofsta and van Baalen were payed to do this by the way, I can prove that very soon, they were payed by princess Leilla.

[Montmorency]

Conchita Wurst.

[Pannonian]

Sure, if you conduct a one-sided argument with no leeway, you can make anything sound convincing. que that drunk guy at the pub who rants away as if he discovered sliced bread. Apparently as some one who speaks in favour for a European Union and reforming the current EU to make it more democratically accountable, I simply don't exist as an option in his rant as I am a liar and hate democracy. There is also absolutely no points on the great many positives of being within the EU either, which taken in the context of his rant would make it a little silly.

And looking at his related videos, I'd say he's your typical right wing xenophobic nut, with the complete policy package. Hear one word from their like, and you can guess what they'd say on just about everything else. For someone brought up on a Tory/socialist sense of self-responsibility and tolerance of others, I find these neo-blackshirts highly unimpressive.

[Fragony]

lol@neo-blackshirts

Duuuuude

[Beskar]

Conchita Wurst.

Good singer. The beard just looks weird and out of place, unless we swap the dress for a humbler robe and re-casted as Jesus Christ Superstar.

[Fragony]

Got to love someone who is so shamelessly fabulous. Reminds of the movie 'Breakfest at Pluto'. I bet he is a riot to have a drink with.

[Fragony]

I'm sure this isn't the right thread, however as you are well aware the British were never told that the Common Market meant being subsumed into a federal Europe. If you think that's democratic then you need to see a doctor.

[Been moved to 'Right' thread.]

Aye. The Dutch and the French were also pretty clear on what we think of the EU. EU parlement often doesn't even know what they are voting for, instant yes.

'That is how we do things'

[Husar]

Conchita Wurst is just testing the extent of my tolerance and it's (not) working because I just don't like to look at that face. It's rare but it managed it. And the ESC continues to be nothing more than a collection of political statements where people who mostly can't become popular otherwise are sent to become poster boys/girls for whatever perversion the countries want to promote this year. I think I'll be a conservative from now on, I've been a progressive pinko liberalist for long enough anyway.

[Montmorency]

You can't tolerate unpleasant faces?

[Strike For The South]

You can't tolerate unpleasant faces?

It's why he lives without mirrors

[Husar]

You can't tolerate unpleasant faces?

Not when they are styled with the intention to look that way and to prove some kind of point I guess.
I have to set some kind of arbitrary limit to what I can tolerate I think.

[Montmorency]

W-e-e-e-ll, he's taken on that persona for a few years now.

[Fragony]

Conchita Wurst is just testing the extent of my tolerance and it's (not) working because I just don't like to look at that face. It's rare but it managed it. And the ESC continues to be nothing more than a collection of political statements where people who mostly can't become popular otherwise are sent to become poster boys/girls for whatever perversion the countries want to promote this year. I think I'll be a conservative from now on, I've been a progressive pinko liberalist for long enough anyway.

Common Hussie, don't hurt what doesn't harm you. It's pretty damn hilarious, a sense of humour would look better on you.

[Andres]

Common Hussie, don't hurt what doesn't harm you. It's pretty damn hilarious, a sense of humour would look better on you.He's German... He can't have humour or else the universe falls apart.Allthough I know very well that the ESC is a circus, I do felt proud to be a European when she won and that was the first time in my life I felt that way. It surprised me, really, since I've never had nationalist feelings. I've had flemish 'tendencies' for a period in my life, but that was more a (deplorable) reaction against bad experiences with francophone arrogance.Now I just felt proud. For all our flaws and for all the ridiculousness that surrounds the ESC, there aren't many places in the world where a bearded guy dressed and behaving like a woman would win a song contest and get so much support. That level of tolerance is something I can be proud of.Sure, we still have a long way to go in many areas, including in the tolerance field, but this shows imo that it's not like we haven't reached anything. 'Europe' isn't entirely artificial, we do have things in common.

[Pannonian]

He's German... He can't have humour or else the universe falls apart.Allthough I know very well that the ESC is a circus, I do felt proud to be a European when she won and that was the first time in my life I felt that way. It surprised me, really, since I've never had nationalist feelings. I've had flemish 'tendencies' for a period in my life, but that was more a (deplorable) reaction against bad experiences with francophone arrogance.Now I just felt proud. For all our flaws and for all the ridiculousness that surrounds the ESC, there aren't many places in the world where a bearded guy dressed and behaving like a woman would win a song contest and get so much support. That level of tolerance is something I can be proud of.Sure, we still have a long way to go in many areas, including in the tolerance field, but this shows imo that it's not like we haven't reached anything. 'Europe' isn't entirely artificial, we do have things in common.

I still regret that "Yodelling in the valley of love" never got the UK nomination. I can't even remember the UK entry for that year.

[Husar]

W-e-e-e-ll, he's taken on that persona for a few years now.

So he dedicated his life to looking annoying on stage, some people are like that. Does he also look like that when he is not being watched by the public? I read it's a stage persona pretty much.


Common Hussie, don't hurt what doesn't harm you. It's pretty damn hilarious, a sense of humour would look better on you.

It's not hilarious, all my genes act up when my eyes see it and they refuse to root for it.
I'm not going to deny it anything others have or harm it, I just don't want to see it everywhere because it insults my personal, biased sense of taste. And what is taste worth if it's not biased?


Allthough I know very well that the ESC is a circus, I do felt proud to be a European when she won and that was the first time in my life I felt that way. It surprised me, really, since I've never had nationalist feelings. I've had flemish 'tendencies' for a period in my life, but that was more a (deplorable) reaction against bad experiences with francophone arrogance.Now I just felt proud. For all our flaws and for all the ridiculousness that surrounds the ESC, there aren't many places in the world where a bearded guy dressed and behaving like a woman would win a song contest and get so much support.

Yeah, let's not pretend that this is actually a song constest instead of a chance for us to pretend that we enjoy a "performance" by an abomination singing a boring ballad while standing around in front of a big flaming screen that does more than the abomination which just stands around and sings a boring ballad. And then we can pat ourselves onto our collective backs and congratulate ourselves on how tolerant and sophisticated we are for applauding this boring, ugly abomination in the name of progress.

I'd be much more proud of us if it had been someone with asperger's or a girl/guy with a burnt face, but this is a highly artificial abomination that is artificially created for the purpose of evoking tolerance so we can feel better about ourselves. It's ugly, superfifical and I do not like it.


That level of tolerance is something I can be proud of.Sure, we still have a long way to go in many areas, including in the tolerance field, but this shows imo that it's not like we haven't reached anything. 'Europe' isn't entirely artificial, we do have things in common.

Like, being artificial?

[Graphic]

Husar showed me the link and I have to admit that I actually laughed out loud at the 11 second mark. The song is completely unremarkable and just sounds like a lame forgotten James Bond theme. It clearly didn't win for how good the song is.

[Montmorency]

I'd be much more proud of us if it had been someone with asperger's or a girl/guy with a burnt face, but this is a highly artificial abomination that is artificially created for the purpose of evoking tolerance so we can feel better about ourselves. It's ugly, superfifical and I do not like it.

In other words, LGBTQ is not high on your priority list.

[Strike For The South]

Dont worry fraulein, when the Muslims take over, you wont have to worry about anyone who upsets your delicate gender sensibilities.

[Beskar]

In other words, LGBTQ is not high on your priority list.

Husar is technically correct. It is a purposeful fashion statement to elicit a response. If there was no beard, and I don't think it would be anywhere near as controversial. It is not the fact it is a drag-act, it is the fact it is a bearded-lady act. As a stylish choice, it doesn't look good, it looks like they stole one of the shepherds from Jesus Christ Superstar and stuck him in a dress, it has that abrahamic-style to it, which you can sometimes see in portraits of Jesus.
https://i.imgur.com/9OoTJwV.jpg

[Montmorency]

So, it's not the fact that he was cross-dressing, but the fact that he was emphatically cross-dressing? :thinking:

[Beskar]

So, it's not the fact that he was cross-dressing, but the fact that he was emphatically cross-dressing? :thinking:

I think if it was more Nadia Almada, it would be less of a complaint. Being honest, I think there would be less of an objection if it was Lily Savage too.

I think forcing the beard there is what is causing the complaint from people if any, other than simply being a poor choice, it is forcing the issue of looking really unnatural in that context.

[Pannonian]

Husar is technically correct. It is a purposeful fashion statement to elicit a response. If there was no beard, and I don't think it would be anywhere near as controversial. It is not the fact it is a drag-act, it is the fact it is a bearded-lady act. As a stylish choice, it doesn't look good, it looks like they stole one of the shepherds from Jesus Christ Superstar and stuck him in a dress, it has that abrahamic-style to it, which you can sometimes see in portraits of Jesus.


Didn't Israel win with a transgender performer a few years back? I don't know if she played up her gender in her act, but the latest winner isn't the first transgender contestant to win.

[Husar]

Maybe once we are technically enough advanced we can transplant his brain into a lawnmower with a CD player and let him win because we find his lifestyle choice so cute.

I also wonder why tolerance has to mean that we vote for the guy, I tolerate him, but that doesn't mean I have to like him or the way he chooses to look. While I'm at it, I also find these huge plastic rings in ears terribly ugly, even when straight white russian muslim nazi women wear them during a US-financed pro-Poland protest. I don't have to proclaim that I love something on every newspaper headline to be tolerant.

[Montmorency]

it is forcing the issue of looking really unnatural in that context.\

???


I don't have to proclaim that I love something on every newspaper headline to be tolerant.

Calling someone an abomination = tolerance?

[Papewaio]

1) The majority of ESC winners aren't major hits afterwards. Some exceptions do exist and often they aren't the politically picked winners.

2) Its really good to see Austria and Israel have something positive in common.

3). Would some of you guys been more happy if the transgender looked exactly like the gender she was mimicing ie Thai Ladyboys?

[Beskar]

???

You don't wear sandals and shorts to a black-tie dress. In those circumstances, it is natural to be dressed up and looking smart and well kept. Turning up in attire which is conflicting with the norms is unnatural. Yes, the Eurovision is not black-tie dress, but it is an analogy to the context of 'unnatural'.

[Husar]

Calling someone an abomination = tolerance?

In the same way that purposefully looking strange on stage = deeply personal lifestyle choice.

[Montmorency]

You don't wear sandals and shorts to a black-tie dress. In those circumstances, it is natural to be dressed up and looking smart and well kept. Turning up in attire which is conflicting with the norms is unnatural. Yes, the Eurovision is not black-tie dress, but it is an analogy to the context of 'unnatural'.

The difference is between gendered dress norms and non-gendered dress norms. Anyway, the formality of the clothes was fine, so I don't see why you would bring this up.


In the same way that purposefully looking strange on stage = deeply personal lifestyle choice.

???

[Beskar]

The difference is between gendered dress norms and non-gendered dress norms. Anyway, the formality of the clothes was fine, so I don't see why you would bring this up.

Aesthetics comes into play too. To me, it simply doesn't look good, whilst there are many examples of feminine-dressed males which do look 'good' and similar for masculine-dressed females, there are also examples of them looking horrendous, like I imagine I would look in a tight-fitting sequin dress. Might be a superficial reason, but it is valid.

However, many people are not impressed like Husar seems to be arguing about how they think that the person involved purposefully made themselves look aesthetically bad to make a point/statement about their personal lifestyle and see it as 'waving it around' in their face. Whilst this is a seperate from my own opinions, I can see why they made think/make that argument and it doesn't take much of a mental leap to understand their position.

On a related note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a guy in drag who happens to have a beard - without the beard it would be a convincing drag act - as it is it really looks more like a woman who's had hair implants than a natural beard.

A lot of the songs were meh - the Austrian entry was very much a song about the singer, whether that's artistic or crass I couldn't decide, but it was well delivered and less fluffy than the Swedish entry.

Personally, I felt sorry for the Russian twins.

Edit: Also, I'm fairly sure Husar is deploying that German sense of humour none of us understand, even though he is irked.

Oh wow - this must be what it feels like as an American watching Monty Python.

[Beskar]

Also, I'm fairly sure Husar is deploying that German sense of humour none of us understand, even though he is irked.

This one? (https://i.imgur.com/Wfz2f7J.gif)

[Papewaio]

You don't wear sandals and shorts to a black-tie dress. In those circumstances, it is natural to be dressed up and looking smart and well kept. Turning up in attire which is conflicting with the norms is unnatural. Yes, the Eurovision is not black-tie dress, but it is an analogy to the context of 'unnatural'.

Right because tuxedos are naturally found in which habitat?

Clothes and the social codes that go with them are highly artificial.

I'm sure by modern standards the best dressed Greek philosophers and Roman Senators never wore tuxedos. Those togas make mighty fine dresses and the dudes have beards.

[Beskar]

I'm sure by modern standards the best dressed Greek philosophers and Roman Senators never wore tuxedos. Those togas make mighty fine dresses and the dudes have beards.

I already beat you to that punch-line. My first comment was suggesting a toga for a dress would have been a better fit.

[Papewaio]

I think there is a catch 22 here. She could have gone full crying game or give you fair warning.

It seems some of you just want to have an excuse for after the fact.

[Sarmatian]

I'm thinking Hus finds it distasteful in a same way someone would find Lady Gaga's meat dress distasteful. Nothing to do with crossdressing or lgbt rights.

[Fragony]

I'm thinking Hus finds it distasteful in a same way someone would find Lady Gaga's meat dress distasteful. Nothing to do with crossdressing or lgbt rights.

Off course it's distatefull but that doesn't make it any less hilarious. A very peculiar gay friend of mine even has a chihuaha named Coco. I dare you all to call him any names, you will be swallowing your teeth in an instant if you do, and not by my doing.

[Sarmatian]

You do have very violent friends, Frags. One wanted to kill the mother of his child, another would beat a person up for insulting his dog.

In between other beatings and stabbings you mentioned, I'm starting to think you live in some dystopian future.

[Andres]

It's not hilarious, all my genes act up when my eyes see it and they refuse to root for it.
I'm not going to deny it anything others have or harm it, I just don't want to see it everywhere because it insults my personal, biased sense of taste. And what is taste worth if it's not biased?



Yeah, let's not pretend that this is actually a song constest instead of a chance for us to pretend that we enjoy a "performance" by an abomination singing a boring ballad while standing around in front of a big flaming screen that does more than the abomination which just stands around and sings a boring ballad. And then we can pat ourselves onto our collective backs and congratulate ourselves on how tolerant and sophisticated we are for applauding this boring, ugly abomination in the name of progress.

I'd be much more proud of us if it had been someone with asperger's or a girl/guy with a burnt face, but this is a highly artificial abomination that is artificially created for the purpose of evoking tolerance so we can feel better about ourselves. It's ugly, superfifical and I do not like it.



Like, being artificial?

Is the ESC nonsense? Yes. A ridiculous circus? Yes. Awful taste in music? Yes. More carnaval than a song contest? Certainly so.

But that's not the point.

The artist and her/his act may be artificial and just somebody exaggerating and playing a role to get attention, but the sentiment towards what the act represents isn't artificial, imo. I think it's safe to say this victory expresses the fact that most Europeans are very ok with gay people, transgenders, transvestites etc.

It's also worth nothign that this act got quite some votes from the, according to some of our mainstream Western media homophobic, Eastern European countries. That doesn't mean it's all perfect now. I'm not naive. But it's a positive signal and it doesn't hurt to say that, perhaps, progress is being made. You can of course continue to lament about the evil gay haters in Eastern Europe; I for one prefer to be optimistic. Patting on the back? And why not? If Eastern Europe gives a signal that they are growing to a society that accepts gay people, then that's progress. It means we're growing towards each other and that we are getting more similarities. That's a good thing.

Anyway, when did you become so cynical? Can't you be positive or optimistic for once? Why the need of being so negative.

It's also interesting that you claim to be tolerant, but call her "an abomination". Using a word like "silly" or "ridiculous" would've given your claim of being tolerant more credibility. Calling this "an abomination" doesn't make you sound very tolerant.

[Husar]

Also, I'm fairly sure Husar is deploying that German sense of humour none of us understand, even though he is irked.

It's everywhere, and Germans don't always get it either, so maybe I'm just strange.


This one? (https://i.imgur.com/Wfz2f7J.gif)

:sweetheart:


???

I thought LGBT rights are about respecting the way these people are because they deeply feel that they are/should be this way and biology has accidentally given them the wrong body or something. And I don't like the self-righteous "oh look how we all love him, we are sooooo tolerant, take this Russia!"-stance of the media and whoever voted for him. If it had been a vote for the song regardless of the performer, great. But the way it is marketed it was a vote for the performer just for the sake of rubbing in the performer and the performer appears to have performed at least partially just for this reason. And I don't like the sub-message that I could be less tolerant just because I think he looks ugly and don't absolutely adore his face and his song.

And this is how real women wear their beards:
http://oddstuffmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/boroda-0003.jpg

[Husar]

But that's not the point.

The artist and her/his act may be artificial and just somebody exaggerating and playing a role to get attention, but the sentiment towards what the act represents isn't artificial, imo. I think it's safe to say this victory expresses the fact that most Europeans are very ok with gay people, transgenders, transvestites etc.

It's also worth nothign that this act got quite some votes from the, according to some of our mainstream Western media homophobic, Eastern European countries. That doesn't mean it's all perfect now. I'm not naive. But it's a positive signal and it doesn't hurt to say that, perhaps, progress is being made. You can of course continue to lament about the evil gay haters in Eastern Europe; I for one prefer to be optimistic. Patting on the back? And why not? If Eastern Europe gives a signal that they are growing to a society that accepts gay people, then that's progress. It means we're growing towards each other and that we are getting more similarities. That's a good thing.

But maybe the point of the Eastern Europeans was not that they're okay with LGBTs now but that they wanted to show the finger to the very openly homophobic Russians because of the Ukraine crisis. Russian politicians have already willingly walked into the trap by the dozens.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/russia-slams-eurovision-winner-conchita-3525396
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/11/conchita-wurst-eurovision-russia-_n_5304395.html

We're just antagonizing our biggest neighbor after we've already heavily strained the relationship. I will repeat what I already said in the Ukraine thread, it's easier to convince a friend than to threaten a strong enemy into submission, but hey, why don't we just start WW3 because Czechoslovakia is still angry about the people Stalin killed? I'm sure going to war will make us all feel better about it when we gloriously slaughter the evil homophobic Russians because we're so righteous and tolerant now...
Meanwhile in the real world, even (because they were the first emancipation group I can think of) women still don't get the same wages as men for the same work...

But yeah, let's congratulate our awesome selves because we voted for miss sausage in a completely meaningless contest for the whole world to see.


It's also interesting that you claim to be tolerant, but call her "an abomination". Using a word like "silly" or "ridiculous" would've given your claim of being tolerant more credibility. Calling this "an abomination" doesn't make you sound very tolerant.

That was the weird humor part, I should probably really stop this because noone finds me contradicting myself funny anymore. I guess I'm the only one who can laugh about myself... :creep:

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is a sad day, and symptomatic of the tragic state in which European society finds itself, when this is the sort of thing that we take pride in. Why are such people always praised as being so brave and bold, as if they somehow ever risked getting a hostile reception from the bulk of society?

I have some news for you. He/she is not the downtrodden. He/she is not the one being victimized by society. He/she is not fighting against discrimination by a self-righteous society.

If you want to see the downtrodden, the victimized, those who are really kicked and spat upon by the self-righteous, then my advice to you is to go to a deprived council estate and witness the family breakdown that is being caused by an abandonment of our traditional moral values. Values that are not just rooted in tradition, but our nature - that extend back to our very creation. But rather than trying to heal the problems of this world, media and polite society instead aggravates them by peddling this Conchita Wurst trash.

Not one of you in this thread has ever shown anything less than contempt for the people that are really at the bottom of society, and yet you congratulate yourselves on your 'tolerance' because of some freak of nature you parade around as a token gesture. Guess what? The victimized and downtrodden don't stand on stage and cavort to the adoring millions.

But then again such garish freak shows are a great means of continuing the stupiditization of the population.

We are increasingly moving towards some sort of dystopian future, when a completely out-of-touch, decadent civil society peddles nothing but garbage to a massive, sprawling underclass to keep it in a permanent cycle of social and political breakdown. Let's not talk about the rampantly rising alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and family breakdown witnessed by the poorest in society; no, let's talk about the bearded singing lady. People need to start waking up to the reality around them.

[Greyblades]

Come gaze upon the bearded lady, see the amazing pig child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Honey_Boo_Boo), marvel at the animal men and loose women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29), hear the fat lady sing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X_Factor) and the dancing freaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_Talent)... well, at least it's not all directed at the lower classes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills)

[Pannonian]

Come gaze upon the bearded lady, see the amazing pig child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Honey_Boo_Boo), marvel at the animal men and loose women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29), hear the fat lady sing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X_Factor) and the dancing freaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_Talent)... well, at least it's not all directed at the lower classes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills)

Don't turn your nose at entertainment for the lower classes. There have been some real gems (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGwikODs6ik) in the past.

Incidentally, Churchill prided himself on being part of a mob that physically tore down a wall outside one of these music halls that was stopping the lower classes from getting in.

[Sir Moody]

If you want to see the downtrodden, the victimized, those who are really kicked and spat upon by the self-righteous, then my advice to you is to go to a deprived council estate and witness the family breakdown that is being caused by an abandonment of our traditional moral values. Values that are not just rooted in tradition, but our nature - that extend back to our very creation. But rather than trying to heal the problems of this world, media and polite society instead aggravates them by peddling this Conchita Wurst trash.

sorry which set of "Traditional" Morals are you thinking of? funnily enough we have been through quite a few over the years - the funny thing about Morals is they are defined by Society and thus change with them - the Morals from 50 years ago are no more "Traditional" than the Morals from 100 years ago which were completely different and so on...

Ask a Roman what he thinks of your "Traditional" Morals and he would probably call you decadent and morally corrupt...

[Montmorency]

Husar, I don't see why a political motivation here makes it any less worthwhile - or would the winner being an individual with Asperger's or a burnt face somehow negate the fact that it's a political victory? Seems contradictory...


Classic fallacy, Rhy, unless you're willing to endorse the position that the poor are literally the only underprivileged group and that poverty is literally the only social problem we should be worrying about.

[Husar]

Husar, I don't see why a political motivation here makes it any less worthwhile - or would the winner being an individual with Asperger's or a burnt face somehow negate the fact that it's a political victory? Seems contradictory...

No, it wouldn't. At best it may appear a little bit less phony than it does now because a real, unchangeable "problem" in your face is more serious than one you created yourself to parade it around.

[Beskar]

Classic fallacy, Rhy, unless you're willing to endorse the position that the poor are literally the only underprivileged group and that poverty is literally the only social problem we should be worrying about.

Another fallacy is that he attributes it to the breakdown of "Traditional Values", because most of those values is what stick people in those situations. You have the traditional protestant work-ethnic that these people are the results of their laziness thus shouldn't be helped, you have the catholic traditional value saying not to use contraception so they have like 9 kids, and the list goes on.

Also contradictory to belief, there are a lot of good services and people who dedicate their lives in trying to make a difference to the poorer fringes as a safety net and these run by public support, similar to some of the government backed initiatives and the welfare checks.

Whilst there is a lot of genuine and needy people, there are also those who simply don't help themselves and refuse to be helped. When they prioritise their budgets on SkyTV mega-packages and eating at expensive takeaways such as dominos, mcdonalds, KFC, they also waste a huge amount on smoking and alcohol, no wonder they do not have any money for anything essential. As much as you can argue about the blight of those who put themselves in a mess, reality is, they cannot be helped if they do not want to be helped.

[Montmorency]

because a real, unchangeable "problem" in your face is more serious than one you created yourself to parade it around.

This is a very serious misunderstanding that needs to be stamped out.

Both ASD and trans-sexuality are associated with measurable aneurotypicality.

To claim that the trans issue is any less serious or real is just insulting, and in itself is indeed uninformed bigotry.

Your PC assignment is to watch this video and think about what you've done wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfZMXJDZlyU


Whilst there is a lot of genuine and needy people, there are also those who simply don't help themselves and refuse to be helped. When they prioritise their budgets on SkyTV mega-packages and eating at expensive takeaways such as dominos, mcdonalds, KFC, they also waste a huge amount on smoking and alcohol, no wonder they do not have any money for anything essential. As much as you can argue about the blight of those who put themselves in a mess, reality is, they cannot be helped if they do not want to be helped.

Naw, dude, that's not the right way to approach it. If someone has only $5 to their name, and no prospects of finding work, let alone finding security, then what's the difference between spending it on food and spending it on smokes/drink?

It's also a very upper-middle-class attitude that if someone is indigent, then they should make do with no luxuries whatsoever. Were you one of those people who were outraged that UK food banks sometimes received and distributed donated cans of soup that weren't the cheapest possible?

[Husar]

To claim that the trans issue is any less serious or real is just insulting, and in itself is indeed uninformed bigotry.

The only "problem" in his face is the beard, without it she'd be a beautiful girl.
I think you seriously misunderstand my point.

[Montmorency]

Nah, I don't. Trans-gender can be ambi-gender, you know. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

sorry which set of "Traditional" Morals are you thinking of? funnily enough we have been through quite a few over the years - the funny thing about Morals is they are defined by Society and thus change with them - the Morals from 50 years ago are no more "Traditional" than the Morals from 100 years ago which were completely different and so on...

Ask a Roman what he thinks of your "Traditional" Morals and he would probably call you decadent and morally corrupt...

I am speaking of what anybody would understand me to be speaking of if I were to speak of traditional family values. Can I ask where exactly the ambiguity lies for you?

Although the ways in which family relationships and roles manifest themselves can change according to circumstance, these manifestations are always rooted in our nature as human beings - and in particular, as men/fathers and women/wives. Women are biologically wired to look after kids. Men are biologically wired to protect and provide for their family. These biological realities are why you will notice that certain core family values tend to transcend culture. The vast majority of societies across the world, regardless of time, beliefs, or socioeconomic circumstance, have a concept of family where children are actively raised by their mothers; these mothers are in turn married to a husband, and both partners fulfill their role as father/husband and mother/wife within the family unit. This ideal was held as truly in ancient Rome as it is today.

This traditional family as a basic social unit has always been essential to society. Now, far away from the glitz and glam of Conchita Wurtz's life of stardom, which is comically presented as some sort of struggle against oppression, people at the bottom of society are feeling the real pain caused by social and moral degeneration. The facts are plain enough. Co-habitees are 3x more likely (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089144/Britain-million-single-parent-families-majority-children-raised-mother-alone.html) to split up than married couples. Children raised in the resulting single-parent households are much significantly more likely to engage in crime (http://angelb2009.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/effects-of-single-parent-families-on-juvenile-delinquency/), and also to drop out of school, become a teen parent, and unemployed (http://www.mdrc.org/publication/effects-marriage-and-divorce-families-and-children). Women will often end up in poverty (http://primacyofreason.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/in-depth-study-after-divorce-44-of_31.html) as a result of divorce.

These are the people that are oppressed, that are suffering - not some superstar bearded lady. The values being espoused by the top-dogs of the establishment and those they spoon-feed are poison to society, and especially to the most vulnerable in society. Once again - people need to wake up to the reality around them.

[Beskar]

It's also a very upper-middle-class attitude that if someone is indigent, then they should make do with no luxuries whatsoever. Were you one of those people who were outraged that UK food banks sometimes received and distributed donated cans of soup that weren't the cheapest possible?

No, I was the one that argued in another thread that you can get a lot of cheap luxuries, such as large tv's for £200 and they last for years and such comparable basics should be kept, whilst centurion1 said people should sell all of their processions because they don't deserve to have them by accepting handouts.

So you casting a very false representation of me, also your example shows very little awareness of the reality I am talking about and what Rhy is referring to. This isn't "Oh, I suddenly have nothing but $5 to my name", these are supported-living arrangements usually made by local authorities and receiving regular welfare payments.

As for saying they should have no luxuries, I never suggested that in the slightest. The fact you laugh off a pack of cigarettes as if forgetting some one with an addiction spends £5 per day and more, which adds up to approx £2000 per year. Then you have excess alcohol, but even lets say, £5 a day on that, now that total is £4000. Now, this is £4000 per year, which is not spend on food, clothes and necessities. Now, if you cut down to 5 cigs a day, you have a couple beers far more casually, you have easily saved £3000 for you to spend on these other things. The first things usually neglected are clothing, washing products and diet at the cost of things like cigarettes and alcohol. Also as someone who has helped people budgeting in similar circumstances and they come back to me saying "Thank you to helping me realise, I can afford to give my kid a better quality of care" or talking about how their life has improved since I helped shift their focus on more productive goals, such as attending pleasurable/hobby groups, so interacting more with others and making friends, instead of being isolated. I assume I am doing a job well-done and know a little something about what I am talking about?

[Husar]

Nah, I don't. Trans-gender can be ambi-gender, you know. There's nothing wrong with that.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ambigender

(1) an item used by both sexes
I see.
And what's wrong with thinking this particular ambi-gender person is ugly because of the choice to have an overwemphasized, half-real, half-painted beard? Does that make one intolerant for not embracing the way she looks? The rest of my complaint was with the people embracing her, not herself.

[Montmorency]

Co-habitees are 3x more likely to split up than married couples.

Marriage is inherently more difficult to terminate than co-habitation...


Children raised in the resulting single-parent households are much significantly more likely to engage in crime, and also to drop out of school, become a teen parent, and unemployed.

This says more about socio-economics and support networks than it does about morality.


Women will often end up in poverty as a result of divorce.

What does that have to do with co-habitation?


These are the people that are oppressed, that are suffering - not some superstar bearded lady.

J. K. Rowling has never been oppressed then, as she is so rich now that she could never have been poor.


most vulnerable in society.

More vulnerable than someone who's poor and gay/trans? I highly doubt it. Despite its being cliche'd, I have to tell you to check your privilege here.


As for saying they should have no luxuries, I never suggested that in the slightest. The fact you laugh off a pack of cigarettes as if forgetting some one with an addiction spends £5 per day and more, which adds up to approx £2000 per year. Then you have excess alcohol, but even lets say, £5 a day on that, now that total is £4000. Now, this is £4000 per year, which is not spend on food, clothes and necessities. Now, if you cut down to 5 cigs a day, you have a couple beers far more casually, you have easily saved £3000 for you to spend on these other things. The first things usually neglected are clothing, washing products and diet at the cost of things like cigarettes and alcohol.

You miss the point and become out-of-touch here if you think very many people in poverty are spending $5000 a year on cigarettes or alcohol.

[Montmorency]

And what's wrong with thinking this particular ambi-gender person is ugly because of the choice to have an overwemphasized, half-real, half-painted beard? Does that make one intolerant for not embracing the way she looks? The rest of my complaint was with the people embracing her, not herself.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Beskar]

You miss the point and become out-of-touch here if you think very many people in poverty are spending $5000 a year on cigarettes or alcohol.

No, it is actually reality. People use them as a crutch and sometimes their lives revolve having that next cig and drink. I am actually going somewhat from what real people have shown me on their budget plans. Whilst there is a lot of illegal cost-cutting such as buying knock-off cigarettes from a peddler disguised as an ice-cream truckman, a very high proportion of their income is spent on cigarettes and alcohol.

Also your £5000 figure is quoted higher than my own and I also never said 'very many' people. I spoke of 'a number', which denotes a minority but significant enough to draw attention to as there are those who are 'not as bad as these' but who come under the same trap. I would appreciate less misrepresentation of my views.

I get the evidence in front of my eyes regularly, not going to close them and pretend it doesn't exist. There are those who do budget and have far more manageable expenditure, but I deal with those who have completely neglected this and spend outrageous amounts, hence having to help them.

[Montmorency]

First off, 4000 pounds ~ $5000, at least.

Now let's look at some data.

http://www.cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/lowerincome.pdf

Nope, your position doesn't hold up.

Especially:


Alcohol purchases among those
consumers in the lowest income quintile
are highly concentrated in a relatively
small percentage of families.

[Beskar]

Nope, your position doesn't hold up.

You know I can just destroy that report in one-line, right?

Rich people buy far more expensive alcohol than poor people.

There is also another factor, people on higher incomes can afford to spend more on alcohol with detrimental affects to their immediate living environment, such as unable to afford food or clothing. Less likely to get products from the blackmarket. So the fact some one who is 'rich' can spend far more doesn't change the immediate effects to their living environments.

[Sir Moody]

Although the ways in which family relationships and roles manifest themselves can change according to circumstance, these manifestations are always rooted in our nature as human beings - and in particular, as men/fathers and women/wives. Women are biologically wired to look after kids. Men are biologically wired to protect and provide for their family. These biological realities are why you will notice that certain core family values tend to transcend culture. The vast majority of societies across the world, regardless of time, beliefs, or socioeconomic circumstance, have a concept of family where children are actively raised by their mothers; these mothers are in turn married to a husband, and both partners fulfill their role as father/husband and mother/wife within the family unit. This ideal was held as truly in ancient Rome as it is today.

What utter dross...

It may surprise you to learn that Women of the past actually did a lot more than just "raise the kids" - Serfs were required to work the fields whether they were Male or Female and Roman women were a Political force to be reckoned with - most Romans were raised by slaves not their Mothers.

Honestly you need to step back and really look at the problems you are linking to the break down of the Family unit - rampant poverty has far more to do with the "Greed is good" mentality which grew out of the 80's than Feminism - and in fact several of your examples are actually caused by the Restrictive sociological model Feminism tries to fight - also I bet your studies did not check families where the Mother was the bread winner and the Father looked after the children - I would suspect such family units performed the same as your Traditional Unit.

The fact single parents are more likely to raise children in poverty is not overly surprising...

[Montmorency]

Rich people buy far more expensive alcohol than poor people.

Did you even look at it?

Only 50% of households in the bottom quintile buy any alcohol.

20% of the bottom quintile buy 80% of all alcohol purchased by the bottom quintile.

Moreover, all income quintiles spend about 1% of their incomes on alcohol. This is so even accounting for the above the average 'poor household' spends next to nothing on alcohol.

So the picture you should be getting is of 50% teetotal indigents, with about 30% buying just a little bit of alcohol every once in a while, and 20% setting the stereotype.

I thought you were better than this, Beskar...

[Beskar]

One problem... read these two quotes we have said together -


I spoke of 'a number', which denotes a minority but significant enough to draw attention to as there are those who are 'not as bad as these' but who come under the same trap. I would appreciate less misrepresentation of my views.

So the picture you should be getting is of 50% teetotal indigents, with about 30% buying just a little bit of alcohol every once in a while, and 20% setting the stereotype.

I thought you were better than this, Beskar...

Look at what I said, look at what you said. I said a minority but significant to merit mentioning, this could be hypothetically 5-10%. You said that 20% might be in the situation I talked about. Where is the problem? I have actively voiced myself from a role of some one working with vulnerable people who have needed assistance in challenging/tackling these issues and you responded to me as if suggesting they don't exist, then you give 20%?!

So saying majority, "a lot", great quantities of poor, genuine and needy people are fine, except for minority, I am wrong. You say it is 20% as if to 'correct me', which doesn't correct me, as it is easily within the context of what I said.

Would be like me stating "There are a few trouble makers in the backroom" and you respond to me, saying how they don't exist and how much better you thought of me, saying "There are only 5!".

[Montmorency]

What utter dross...

It may surprise you to learn that Women of the past actually did a lot more than just "raise the kids" - Serfs were required to work the fields whether they were Male or Female and Roman women were a Political force to be reckoned with - most Romans were raised by slaves not their Mothers.

Honestly you need to step back and really look at the problems you are linking to the break down of the Family unit - rampant poverty has far more to do with the "Greed is good" mentality which grew out of the 80's than Feminism - and in fact several of your examples are actually caused by the Restrictive sociological model Feminism tries to fight - also I bet your studies did not check families where the Mother was the bread winner and the Father looked after the children - I would suspect such family units performed the same as your Traditional Unit.

The fact single parents are more likely to raise children in poverty is not overly surprising...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nber.org%2Fpapers%2Fw17098.pdf

I knew there was something familiar about all this...


Look at what I said, look at what you said. I said a minority but significant to merit mentioning, this could be hypothetically as little as 5-10%. You said that 20% might be in the situation I talked about.

So saying "I thought you are better than this" doesn't ring true, because you just said yourself 20%, or does that make you as bad as me?

If we were to break down the 20%, I suspect we would find an increasingly smaller minority that accounts for the majority of purchases of alcohol in the bottom quintile.

Say it is even your "5-10%" - so what does that mean for the rest of the poor? Why should this small minority affect how the rest of the poor are perceived or treated? That's the big question here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Classic fallacy, Rhy, unless you're willing to endorse the position that the poor are literally the only underprivileged group and that poverty is literally the only social problem we should be worrying about.

No, not it is not a fallacy, not on any level whatsoever. There is a perverted morality being pushed by the media and this Conchita person, and that same morality is having devastating effects on society as a whole, and most especially on the most deprived socioeconomic segments of it. There is a direct link involved. And nowhere did I say that this was the only sort of oppression in society.


Marriage is inherently more difficult to terminate than co-habitation...

Hey, all I wanted to do was to highlight the link between moral laxity and social issues. Sure, you can surmise that people may just be staying in unhealthy marriages for practical reasons. I could surmise that these practical issues may simply prevent rash decisions at the first bump in the road. Surmising doesn't do a lot, but so far I've given a direct link between the abandonment of marriage and the social damage that causes.


This says more about socio-economics and support networks than it does about morality.

Again, I've shown a direct link between two issues. Now, you can bring in something else and say that it could smooth everything over - the problem is it has never been shown to do so, not presently or in the past. I show realities and you offer hypotheticals. For what it's worth, I don't believe that the best welfare reforms in the world will ever compensate for a broken family.


What does that [women ending up in poverty after divorce] have to do with co-habitation?

It has to do with my point that the abandonment of solid family values is socially damaging. The figures I gave are clear enough.


J. K. Rowling has never been oppressed then, as she is so rich now that she could never have been poor.

No, I don't believe the bearded lady ever suffered for her image the way that people suffer as a consequence of the perverted morality she espouses.


More vulnerable than someone who's poor and gay/trans? I highly doubt it. Despite its being cliche'd, I have to tell you to check your privilege here.

My privilege? I'm a young, white, male, heterosexual, Protestant, Hun, mentally-ill, benefit-scrounging NEET - I'm the living embodiment of everything society hates, I'm the testament to this societies failure.

And I agree we need to treat gay/trans people better, but at the end of the day their deepest problems lie within themselves. Telling them that they way they are thinking is healthy is not helpful for anybody.

[Montmorency]

Again, I've shown a direct link between two issues.

No, you have not. I will not address much of the rest as my response is similar.


My privilege? I'm a young, white, male, heterosexual, Protestant, Hun, mentally-ill, benefit-scrounging NEET

It may be difficult to see where you are at now, in a place that is almost-totally homogeneous ethnically, but if you were elsewhere...


I'm the living embodiment of everything society hates, I'm the testament to this societies failure.

This is very self-centered, and you will find that there is much more than poor people that "society" hates.


Telling them that they way they are thinking is healthy is not helpful for anybody.

Why not?

[Beskar]

So what does that mean for the rest of the poor? Why should this small minority affect how the rest of the poor are perceived or treated? That's the big question here.

They should be assisted with life-skills where required such as free access to budgeting needs and getting finances in order, as this provides a solid framework which is flexible, this takes account of welfare such as money provided and money to pay things such as rent. People should be treated like how you would like to be treated yourself. If you are weak and vulnerable, you would like someone strong to help get you back upon your own feet. Society should be structured in a way that if you did end up with nothing but clothes on your back and $5, you have the means to recover from your situation and contribute back into society to help others who may fall into that trap.

Great many services should be available, especially in terms of healthcare as those on lower incomes are more susceptible to illnesses due to current neglect by surroundings and society, so they may not be vaccinated and fall prey to things which some one on a higher income has already been protected against. A lot of those on low-term low-income has neglected themselves when it comes to dentistry, for example, only ever seeing one when they need emergency care as they avoided £30 checkups, and having to fork out £140. There are payment plans and benefits which can give you access to the dentist and these should be more widely known to them.

The list can go on for a long while. The most important thing is that people need to want to help themselves, because it cannot be done for them. So we need to give them a reason to want to do that and give them the support so they are confident they can do it. You help others so they can help themselves.

[Montmorency]

All right, so why waste your breath on singling-out small minorities and falling back on short-sighted conservative propaganda?


Whilst there is a lot of genuine and needy people, there are also those who simply don't help themselves and refuse to be helped. When they prioritise their budgets on SkyTV mega-packages and eating at expensive takeaways such as dominos, mcdonalds, KFC, they also waste a huge amount on smoking and alcohol, no wonder they do not have any money for anything essential. As much as you can argue about the blight of those who put themselves in a mess, reality is, they cannot be helped if they do not want to be helped.

[Ironside]

And I don't like the self-righteous "oh look how we all love him, we are sooooo tolerant, take this Russia!"-stance of the media and whoever voted for him. If it had been a vote for the song regardless of the performer, great.

It got 3 place (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=1893&voter=RU)(8 points) by the public in Russia. TAKE THAT SELF-PUNCH RUSSIA! If you think that's the reason it won, then you've never gotten the attitude surrounding Eurovision. It's a spectable, with live performers. It will always be a live performence (it's also a stress test for European live broadcasting in case of a crisis), so of course the performer and how the performer stands out is a major part of it.

Did Russia get spited on? Yes, but only with Russia losing points (poor girls btw). The winner had nothing to do with that.


But the way it is marketed it was a vote for the performer just for the sake of rubbing in the performer and the performer appears to have performed at least partially just for this reason. And I don't like the sub-message that I could be less tolerant just because I think he looks ugly and don't absolutely adore his face and his song.


Yes? The song text is about her as well. She's the phoenix risen from the bullying of him.

And for the intolerence. Yes, you are less tolerant. Not for not liking his face or the song, but very much for the comments. Hitting a nerve means that there's a nerve to hit. But it is your response of getting hit in that nerve, that tells your tolerance. Abomination calling is not a sign it.
A majority of the Eurovision voters did not vote for the winner (they usually don't). There's no shunning for what they voted for. Unless people are complaining on those that voted for the Netherlands (12p) in Germany?


It is a sad day, and symptomatic of the tragic state in which European society finds itself, when this is the sort of thing that we take pride in. Why are such people always praised as being so brave and bold, as if they somehow ever risked getting a hostile reception from the bulk of society?


Completely different problem. The poor and downridden are the unseen. This is about those who are oppressesed because of who they are. And they are certainly facing a hotile reception. We already got some of it in this very topic.

[Husar]

And for the intolerence. Yes, you are less tolerant. Not for not liking his face or the song, but very much for the comments. Hitting a nerve means that there's a nerve to hit. But it is your response of getting hit in that nerve, that tells your tolerance. Abomination calling is not a sign it.

:laugh4:

That one made me laugh. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?118607-Europe&p=2053591554&viewfull=1#post2053591554)

[Beskar]

No, I don't believe the bearded lady ever suffered for her image the way that people suffer as a consequence of the perverted morality she espouses.
Rhyfelwyr, this is where ideology is ruling your decision and not your logic. Is a woman with a beard making any difference to your life? The answer is most likely 'no'. The impact of other people doing their individual things pretty much does nothing at all to affect you or those around you. If you went out to the cornershop in a dress, would a mythical-karma descend upon your neighbourhood where bad things are going to occur as per consequence?


And I agree we need to treat gay/trans people better, but at the end of the day their deepest problems lie within themselves. Telling them that they way they are thinking is healthy is not helpful for anybody.

Actually, it is very healthy - For them.

Society is a very cruel place sometimes, from what you said from your own experiences, you feel victimised and feel like 'scum'. Now think about if you had a preference to more 'girly' things, then you had people treating you as scum for nothing that even bothers or concerns them?

'Traditional Values' are old-hat, they are out of date, they don't reflect the real values that shape a real society.

This actually reminds me of when some one said "I don't like now-a-days, back when I was younger, you could leave the door open, trust your kids around strange old men". The reality is, all these stories that are 'modern day' are all those activities where those old men touched children, people were blinded by their own ignorance and the traditional stigma associated with rape-victims and vulnerable people. It isn't something happening now, it is more that society is becoming more open and transparent, that these abuses are coming to light. It is a sign that society is progressing and becoming better, clearing out the skeletons in the closet.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What utter dross...

It may surprise you to learn that Women of the past actually did a lot more than just "raise the kids" - Serfs were required to work the fields whether they were Male or Female and Roman women were a Political force to be reckoned with - most Romans were raised by slaves not their Mothers.

Honestly you need to step back and really look at the problems you are linking to the break down of the Family unit - rampant poverty has far more to do with the "Greed is good" mentality which grew out of the 80's than Feminism - and in fact several of your examples are actually caused by the Restrictive sociological model Feminism tries to fight - also I bet your studies did not check families where the Mother was the bread winner and the Father looked after the children - I would suspect such family units performed the same as your Traditional Unit.

The fact single parents are more likely to raise children in poverty is not overly surprising...

Dross, really? I guess all the figures I gave that you opted not to reply to were dross? Apparently if I provide numerous sources which clearly back my points, that is dross; but if you often nothing but your own musings and obscure references to ancient peoples, then that is a solid argument?

Alas, such is the laziness that exists in mainstream secular thought these days, because it has been allowed to go unchallenged for so long. I have gathered that it is regarded as clever to seem to nit-pick at your opponent, while saying nothing of substance in return; as if, by pointing out a particular, you somehow refute a general argument. And in your case, you have chosen the ancient Romans as an example that family values have not always been exactly the same as they are today. An excellent point to bring up if you want to look clever but say nothing. Well, let's analyze your point in such detail as you apply it to mine...

First off, ancient Romans values were not monolithic. Roman citizenship was held by people of many nations with drastically different forms of social arrangements, which would both influence and be influenced by the dominant culture emanating from the Roman heartland itself. Secondly, particular Roman views on the family developed over time. Many Romans historians actually held to an evolutionary view of marriage, where it was regarded as becoming gradually less patriarchal and more democratic throughout the centuries. There also developed a sense of moral panic that the traditional family was breaking down, indeed one of their greatest concern was one of the very issues you mention (although you present it as though it was well accepted by Roman society) - the fact that children were being raised by slaves and not their mothers.

So, Sir Moody, what Roman values are you talking about? Are we talking about Imperial Gaul? Late-Republic Judea? Early Republican Rome? Do you want me to endlessly stall any useful, relevant discussion with such silly cleverness the way that you have been doing?

And as for the rest of your reply, my figures clearly demonstrate that it is not the "restrictive sociological model" of traditional family values that causes these social problems, but rather the breakdown of such a model. What sort of argument are you implying here? That kids from single-parent households turn to crime and drop out of school because of the stigma attached to their family situation?

And I would be happy to agree that poverty also exacerbates these issues, I would never suggest otherwise.


Another fallacy is that he attributes it to the breakdown of "Traditional Values", because most of those values is what stick people in those situations. You have the traditional protestant work-ethnic that these people are the results of their laziness thus shouldn't be helped, you have the catholic traditional value saying not to use contraception so they have like 9 kids, and the list goes on.

I would say that the idea of working-hard and having big families are noble principles in and of themselves, the only issue is that they fall apart in such an unjust society as that which we live in. But I disagree they are a cause of social issues. Anybody who uses the Protestant work ethic to demonize the poor should realise that it only applies if you have the opportunity to work and to reap the rewards in the first place. And I think you will find that family size corresponds far more with income and education than it does with religious belief.


Also contradictory to belief, there are a lot of good services and people who dedicate their lives in trying to make a difference to the poorer fringes as a safety net and these run by public support, similar to some of the government backed initiatives and the welfare checks.

They don't seem to be doing too well at it.


Whilst there is a lot of genuine and needy people, there are also those who simply don't help themselves and refuse to be helped. When they prioritise their budgets on SkyTV mega-packages and eating at expensive takeaways such as dominos, mcdonalds, KFC, they also waste a huge amount on smoking and alcohol, no wonder they do not have any money for anything essential. As much as you can argue about the blight of those who put themselves in a mess, reality is, they cannot be helped if they do not want to be helped.

This is the sort of thing I have in mind when I said that the same people congratulating themselves on tolerating this he-she show nothing but contempt for the truly marginalized. Do you have any idea of the psychological impact of living in such a state of hopelessness? We are talking about desperately broken people, people completely lacking in confidence, in hope... who rely on cheap pleasures to get themselves through the day. I think many of them come to believe that they cannot be helped. It is a tragic situation. But no, let's just demonize them as scum, we can't be the bad guys, because we love the bearded lady!

[Beskar]

This is the sort of thing I have in mind when I said that the same people congratulating themselves on tolerating this he-she show nothing but contempt for the truly marginalized. Do you have any idea of the psychological impact of living in such a state of hopelessness? We are talking about desperately broken people, people completely lacking in confidence, in hope... who rely on cheap pleasures to get themselves through the day. I think many of them come to believe that they cannot be helped. It is a tragic situation. But no, let's just demonize them as scum, we can't be the bad guys, because we love the bearded lady!

Since you and Montmorency have picked at me for commenting on this, I will say why it is there.

I have great respect for poor people, I do a lot of work which benefits those on low-income and I aim to try to help make life as good and hopeful for them. I have worked quite a lot, totalling in their hundred or so in the area, and I have some real success stories. I had some not so successful ones too, but that is to be expected. I know all about the psychological efforts and cheap pleasures and why people may resort to that.

But I get reminded now and then of my step-brother. He is the prime example of the demonization and it is just infuriating. This is some one who turned down good quality work (£20,000pa) simply because he would lose out on benefits and he would rather receive less money in total in exchange for not having to work for it. He is the kind where he has the brains and health to be a good working individual, instead, he uses that intelligence and effort in pretty much trying his best to defraud the tax system. Wanted a bigger house on that brand-new council area? Solution: Have another child. He wanted a bunch of expensive items, solution? "I don't own anything" so he maxes out on as many loans as possible for the money then simply declares bankruptcy so he doesn't have to pay it back.

So as I said in the quoted part "they cannot be helped if they do not want to be helped". Some people are happy to live on handouts and attempting to cheat the system. I don't label everyone as such but I do know it occurs, unfortunately.

Before you feel that my comments that victimising, if you were offered a comfortable respectable job for £20,000 for year, pretty much guaranteed for at least 20 years. Would you say 'No' to it, because you would lose benefits and you prefer to have the benefits and not work instead?

That job pays more than what I earn at the moment, including a great many of the hardworking public and he was offered it through contacts, friend of a friend and he turned it down for such selfish reasons. It is detestable.

[Sir Moody]

And as for the rest of your reply, my figures clearly demonstrate that it is not the "restrictive sociological model" of traditional family values that causes these social problems, but rather the breakdown of such a model. What sort of argument are you implying here? That kids from single-parent households turn to crime and drop out of school because of the stigma attached to their family situation?

Ok lets skip the whole arguing history with each other since that will lead no-where quick and actually hit the nail on the head.

Yes Single parent households are an issue - primarily because one parent has to both provide and raise a child which does not balance out as it should and the child either ends up in Poverty or with too little Parental oversight (or more usuelly both), promoting stable family units is most definitely a positive thing.

We differ on the solution to said problem - you promote returning to the "traditional" Man provider and Women Nurture model - my problem is said model was tried and failed hence the situation we are in - funnily enough Women don't like to be forced into a role and neither do Men - it is much better if we let them chose. My suggestion is we focus more on building stable family units and less on the roles the members of the Unit take - theres no reason a Woman provider Man nurture unit cant succeed or indeed why a family unit cant be two Men or Two Women - the important part is the stability and their parenting skills

[Beskar]

Now to return us back-on-topic.
https://i.imgur.com/jFIQG0t.jpg
Looks like I wasn't the only one.


As for the European Union being evil and such, I point to the post in the net-neutrality thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?146661-Net-Neutrality-has-been-struck-down-in-US-Courts&p=2053591630&viewfull=1#post2053591630).

The Evil European Union, led by Socialists, Leftists and Greens, have ensured free-speech and access on the internet for us all.

[InsaneApache]

The Evil European Union, led by Socialists, Leftists and Greens, have ensured free-speech and access on the internet for us all.

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

[Montmorency]

Then, presumably, they can either bolster or diminish, defend or destroy, them.

Or are "freedoms" just one more of those causally-inert spiritual entities that are beloved of the ignorant and loud-mouthed?

:rolleyes:

[Beskar]

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

Happy enough to allow Virgin Media, BT, Talk-talk and others infringe on your 'existing freedom' whilst being powerless to stop it?

[Strike For The South]

It's not for governments to bestow freedoms. They already exist.

Horse shit.

[The Lurker Below]

Horse shit.

Also exists and is not bestowed by governments.

Freedom is only that which the powers that be don't touch as it is perceived to be beyond the point at which people will protest.

[Furunculus]

Horse shit.

Not really.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

[Kagemusha]

Not really.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

You underlings of monarchist are surely funny sort: "Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." :wall: lol

[Fisherking]

Right and liberties are not the gift of governments. They can only take them away.

They are to stand before government as unassailable. What government grants can be taken away by government.

[Furunculus]

You underlings of monarchist are surely funny sort: "Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." :wall: lol

what is wrong?

were you confused by the reference to the sovereign, because it is basically shorthand for; state/government.

[Beskar]

Right and liberties are not the gift of governments. They can only take them away.
This is why the US does both the Anglo- and European- view on the matter, by safeguarding rights as defined by the constitution.