View Full Version : Brexit Thread
InsaneApache
05-27-2016, 09:19
OK, the last thread got locked so please behave kiddies. :beam:
My take on it is this.
Forget all the arguments about trade, immigration and all the rest.
Do you want the ability to remove the politicians who make the laws?
If you do, then you should vote to leave.
If you couldn't give a monkeys chuff about the demos, then vote to stay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg
Pannonian
05-27-2016, 10:18
Who did you vote for in the last Euro election? Did you canvas for your MEP candidate?
InsaneApache
05-27-2016, 10:23
Who did you vote for in the last Euro election? Did you canvas for your MEP candidate?
LOL
InsaneApache
05-27-2016, 10:30
You know as well as I do the MEPs are members of a toothless talking shop. The real power is the Commission.
Help us Obiwan Kanobi, you are our only hope. A brexit is the only way we will ever get a nexit, and blow up the EU together.
Pannonian
05-27-2016, 10:57
You know as well as I do the MEPs are members of a toothless talking shop. The real power is the Commission.
The real power is the UK Parliament, whose MPs we elect. Most European bodies are practically powerless unless we decide we want to implement whatever it is they're suggesting. There is a powerful movement in the EU that transcends national government, but it's to do with the euro and hence something that doesn't concern us. Nearly everything in the EU that overrides national government we've opted out of. There may well be a good argument within the eurozone for exiting a body that has powers that they can do nothing about, but the UK is free of nearly everything of that sort. For the UK, the EU is not much more than an EEC with some social additions that our national government wants anyway. A Nexit may make philosophical sense on those grounds. Not so much a Brexit.
Even if we do exit the EU, we're not big enough to stand alone in global markets. So we're going to have to look elsewhere for a bloc that will support our interests. The closest alternative is the US. The problem with a US-UK economic bloc is that the US is even keener on what we see as the worst parts of globalisation than the EU is. The US, after all, is keen on an absolute free market, while the biggest use of EU money is propping up local economies. Exiting the EU because we don't like their bigger vista only sends us towards an even greater supporter of globalisation.
Consider the Benelux (without Walliona) and Scandinavian countries, an absolute powerhouse. There are ways to get rid of the monster that is the EU, none of said countries need them.
Pannonian
05-27-2016, 11:24
Consider the Benelux (without Walliona) and Scandinavian countries, an absolute powerhouse. There are ways to get rid of the monster that is the EU, none of said countries need them.
Create that bloc and we'll join you. Don't expect us to make the first steps.
I don't even get to vote on it! :stare:
InsaneApache
05-27-2016, 14:16
The real power is the UK Parliament, whose MPs we elect. Most European bodies are practically powerless unless we decide we want to implement whatever it is they're suggesting. There is a powerful movement in the EU that transcends national government, but it's to do with the euro and hence something that doesn't concern us. Nearly everything in the EU that overrides national government we've opted out of. There may well be a good argument within the eurozone for exiting a body that has powers that they can do nothing about, but the UK is free of nearly everything of that sort. For the UK, the EU is not much more than an EEC with some social additions that our national government wants anyway. A Nexit may make philosophical sense on those grounds. Not so much a Brexit.
Even if we do exit the EU, we're not big enough to stand alone in global markets. So we're going to have to look elsewhere for a bloc that will support our interests. The closest alternative is the US. The problem with a US-UK economic bloc is that the US is even keener on what we see as the worst parts of globalisation than the EU is. The US, after all, is keen on an absolute free market, while the biggest use of EU money is propping up local economies. Exiting the EU because we don't like their bigger vista only sends us towards an even greater supporter of globalisation.
With all due respect, that's just wrong.
The Lisbon treaty changed all that.
As for being too small to exist outside of the EU, ludicrous.
If you value wealth over liberty and freedom, then you deserve to get everything you asked for. Good and hard.
If you value wealth over liberty and freedom, then you deserve to get everything you asked for. Good and hard.
You mean like London with all the CCTV and financial industry? :creep:
Create that bloc and we'll join you. Don't expect us to make the first steps.
We are hoping you, our referendums aren't binding, only Wilders wants binding referendums and nobody wants to work with him. A brexit would be a great leap, and yes the first step. The dutch were against the EU constitution, they did it anyway. The Dutch were against the treaty with Ukraine, they did it anyway. When our economy grows the EU demands more money, they even take in account illegal money that was made in prostitution and drugs. The EU is just as much dispised here as it is in the UK.
Meanwhile http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-army-plans-kept-secret-from-voters-3j3kg3zwj UK get us out pf this, again
please use that referendum to break the back of the EU before it becomes it's true form
edyzmedieval
05-31-2016, 08:24
Brexit, in all honesty, is a turning point in UK politics. Doesn't matter whether you agree with the EU or not, or what your option is, a serious change will happen in the UK after this referendum regardless of the outcome of the vote. And it will affect every inch and corner of all industries because of all of the trade agreements, exports and legal issues that bind the UK to the EU.
23rd of June - let's see what happens.
Beggars aren't choosers, it isn't going to hurt the UK at all. Everything will remain the same. It only hurts eurocrats.
edyzmedieval
05-31-2016, 10:01
Yes it will.
On every count you can imagine, regardless if the vote is negative or positive. Economically, socially, legally, anything you can think of. The UK has integrated within the EU since the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1960's and 1970's, and bringing the UK out of legal treaties that have worked for the past 40 years is not exactly the easiest thing.
Yes it will.
On every count you can imagine, regardless if the vote is negative or positive. Economically, socially, legally, anything you can think of. The UK has integrated within the EU since the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1960's and 1970's, and bringing the UK out of legal treaties that have worked for the past 40 years is not exactly the easiest thing.
Yes it is really that simple, all these treaties were already in effect during the EEG, a brexit is only a problem for the EU who loses one of it's most important payers, and eurocrats who become even more ideologically bankrupt.
edyzmedieval
05-31-2016, 10:30
The only problem here is that those treaties will no longer fully apply as they do now - the EU won't give the same concessions and trade rights to the UK after it leaves the EU, if it does.
So after a (hypothetical) Brexit, the UK and the EU economies stand to lose. And lose quite a lot.
The only problem here is that those treaties will no longer fully apply as they do now - the EU won't give the same concessions and trade rights to the UK after it leaves the EU, if it does.
So after a (hypothetical) Brexit, the UK and the EU economies stand to lose. And lose quite a lot.
Those rights already existed, the UK has nothing to worry about. Like in the Netherlands for the UK the EU is just a very expensive overhead with very little use.
edyzmedieval
05-31-2016, 11:24
UK stands to lose a lot in the economy sector, the EU's common market greatly helped the EU economy and the local producers. Restricting at least the ease of access for goods is not exactly the best of situations for either party, and economics is not the only part where changes will be expected, regardless of the vote.
But let's see how it goes first of all - 23rd of June should be a rather important day in the UK.
Europe Union suffers from a duality. It is an organisation of Eueopean Countries on one hand, but there are times where it is a superstate-lite. The commissars that people like to moan about are appointed by each country to represent their interests, and it is these individual countries which attempt to game the system for their benefit. An example of this from the UK is Margret Thatcher and recently David Cameron, who wanted to change the EU to benefit the UK interest more. The issue is, these arguments from Tony Benn and the left euroseptics is mostly that these systems which provide forums for national interest are corrupt and undemocratic. As such, they require a reform of the EU to actually go follow a mandate of its people like a true state.
The issue is, right wing euroseptics whilst they might use some of these arguments from the left, are in no way wanting the solution to the democratic deficient because they are only wanting things to their own national benefit, thus the current system is actually a creation from the right to ensure they can have national country interests instead of bowing to the interests of the European people.
it is the funny things like that which are used as ammunition in this campaign by some people...they use arguments against the EU but the actual solution is the opposite of what they believe and oppose that too, in a oxymoronic position where the solution is to froth at the mouth on issues the EU is not responsible for, yelling leave, because they read it in the Daily Mail (cue ECHR). Funnily enough, Daily Mail is a source of that influence and corruption from private interest that Mr Benn was on about.
Greyblades
05-31-2016, 14:47
I feel it is a wasted effort to be complaining that the right doesnt have the same goals as the left. It being perfectly willing to use thier arguments when it suits them is but par for the course.
The left may wish to fix the EU corruption but the right does not want it to be in the position to be corrupt in the first place. The Eu should be a tool of nations not the other way around.
The Eu should be a tool of nations not the other way around.
Both ways around are wrong. Europe be for the European people. Having it any other way IS the corruption.
Greyblades
05-31-2016, 14:58
Europe and the EU arent the same thing. No matter how much Brussles wails otherwise the EU is a tool.
Go Pat Condol http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/05/what_you_have_you_should_hold_dear_brits.html#more
'Brexit' is worth watching as well
InsaneApache
06-02-2016, 12:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxUvMpUu0V4
I want his shirt I want to go to Ibiza in two weeks. But he's right. Dear UK get us out of their clutches. I don't want to live in an ultra-undemocratic lobby-paradise even if I would never notice I do in fact do.
InsaneApache
06-03-2016, 11:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieCfAf_cNXc
That is staged, Soraya is not a Turkish name. Nice cockney accent.
InsaneApache
06-03-2016, 12:41
That is staged, Soraya is not a Turkish name. Nice cockney accent.
She's not Turkish.
That is staged, Soraya is not a Turkish name. Nice cockney accent.
I understand "I come from a family of islamic morrocan migrants", and while I'm not sure if she actually says morrocan or mumbles something else, she certainly didn't say she's turkish. You need to work on your observation skills and not make stuff up.
As for her destroying Cameron, how?
She has some irrational fear that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon and Cameron destroys that in the end. The rest is her just talking about all the bad things she heard from her uncle's auntie's boyfriend's mate about how bad it is to stay in the EU. Maybe Britain should have kept her out right away because she is muslim and therefore potentially a dangerous murdering criminal anyway?
And why is Cameron an EU defender now? I always got the impression that he'd be happy to leave?
Gilrandir
06-03-2016, 14:40
I understand "I come from a family of islamic morrocan migrants", and while I'm not sure if she actually says morrocan or mumbles something else, she certainly didn't say she's turkish. You need to work on your observation skills and not make stuff up.
As for her destroying Cameron, how?
She has some irrational fear that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon and Cameron destroys that in the end. The rest is her just talking about all the bad things she heard from her uncle's auntie's boyfriend's mate about how bad it is to stay in the EU. Maybe Britain should have kept her out right away because she is muslim and therefore potentially a dangerous murdering criminal anyway?
And why is Cameron an EU defender now? I always got the impression that he'd be happy to leave?
And she is really indignat that the Turks had a brawl in the parliament. The Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments do so from time to time and ...? Should the UK stop any contacts with them?
My observation skills are just fine Hussie, you'll see.
InsaneApache
06-03-2016, 15:44
She has some irrational fear that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon and Cameron destroys that in the end.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10773007
And why is Cameron an EU defender now? I always got the impression that he'd be happy to leave?
Because the buttered new potato is a liar politician.
The Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments do so from time to time and ...? Should the UK stop any contacts with them?
Perhaps because, you know, they're not in Europe and therefore unlikely to be asked to join the EU. Having said that.....if Israel and Australia are in the Eurovision Song Contest.......
InsaneApache
06-03-2016, 16:44
Oh noes the likkle dicky birds will all die if we leave!
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/738334630462509057
The comments below are hilarious.
Dear EU the Dutch people dispisse you a well, we generally hate you. You want too much and cost too much and we don't need you
I think in a way, Brexit is a good thing, as it might actually cause the EU to reform. I don't think the vested self-interest a few politicians have is a good thing, and they are the barriers to the self-determination European people.
It was also clear during David Cameron's circus that he has no interest in actual EU reform.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10773007
Because the buttered new potato is a liar politician.
Just combine the news with your own statement afterwards... ~;)
InsaneApache
06-04-2016, 12:21
Just combine the news with your own statement afterwards... ~;)
Tell me about it. So far we've had WWIII will break out if we leave, no seriously.
Tell me about it. So far we've had WWIII will break out if we leave, no seriously.
Yeah, well, in another thread a British person said the sovereignty of others is not sacred. I'm not sure if WW3 will break out if the EU reconquers Britain, depends on how the US reacts I guess.
It's perfectly normal though, to be angry when someone says they don't want to be part of your family anymore.
Watching the Michael Gove Sky Interview.....what a mess.
Gove is not substantiating anything and a lot of what he says is anecdotal or just hot air and the moderator is obviously biased and using US banks as credible sources on British interest? Oh and he's obsessed with lists "Make me a list, name 1, name 11!...", it's all very vague.
What surprises me about Gove is that he says leaving the free trade zone of the EU will be okay for Britain and that the EU is a job-destroying machine, but he also said Britain can then enter trade agreements with the US and China. Because those could never siphon jobs away from Britain? :inquisitive:
He actually seems to be making a case to integrate the EU in politics only and end free trade.
Limit business, integrate politics, poor people will be better off!
Gilrandir
06-04-2016, 14:56
Oh noes the likkle dicky birds will all die if we leave!
You might have misunderstood him. What if he means someone else by "wildlife"?
Now Gove basically says he wants a Chinese Washing machine over a German one but it can't happen unless the UK has a trade deal with China but not with Germany. First of all, why does he not want a British washing machine? How will the Chinese washing machine help British jobs? Is he talking about government jobs for people who test each washing machine for lead paint?
He does have a point about companies abusing tax laws of the EU to avoid paying taxes, but how will a free trade deal with the US not allow US companies to avoid taxes in the UK? How does suggesting a trade deal with the US seem helpful to someone who wants to "take back control" if all trade deals the US enters include private courts where corporations can sue the government? Don't these courts take away control from the people?
Of course Britain can also not enter any trade deals and produce its own washing machines but then you better hope your washing machine won't break until the factories are up...also allows you to save the money to buy them if they were produced by well-paid British workers...
The point being that in every given capitalistic system you will have winners and losers and only delusional people think everybody can be a winner in a competitive economy. If there is no loser, who is paying the winner?
Greyblades
06-04-2016, 15:58
I think the point is that as we are a rich consumer nation if the americans or europeans dont want to sell some goods to us on reasonable terms we can just go to the glut of poor 3rd world nations that will want to take our money. As for the rest, it is expected we'd have hard times, but getting rid of the EU is looking to be worth the hassle. Who knows, maybe the shakeup our leaving causes will be so beneficial that we'd want to come back, but I'm not expecting it.
Yeah, well, in another thread a British person said the sovereignty of others is not sacred. I'm not sure if WW3 will break out if the EU reconquers Britain, depends on how the US reacts I guess.
It's perfectly normal though, to be angry when someone says they don't want to be part of your family anymore.
I was talking about nations and what I actually said was "I do not consider thier soverignty on its own sacred" Considering your third sentance, and the fact that you arent advocating giving countries to every german who doesnt want to be part of the fatherland for the hell of it, I would think you agree.
I was talking about nations and what I actually said was "I do not consider thier soverignty on its own sacred" Considering your third sentance, and the fact that you arent advocating giving countries to every german who doesnt want to be part of the fatherland for the hell of it, I would think you agree.
Transvaal was part of the British fatherland? Interesting perspective, especially since Britain was always part of the European fatherland...
InsaneApache
06-04-2016, 17:06
“Let’s be frank, Britain is an amazing country. We’ve got the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’re a top-10 manufacturer. We’ve got incredibly strong financial services. The world wants to come and do business here. Look at the record of inward investment. Look at the leaders beating the path to our door to come and see what’s happening with this great country’s economy. The argument isn’t whether Britain could survive outside the EU. Of course it could.”
Buttered New Potato.
Greyblades
06-04-2016, 17:14
Transvaal was part of the British fatherland? Interesting perspective, especially since Britain was always part of the European fatherland...
Well there were more Britons than boers in it!
Seriously, if you were to live by the maxim that a nations sovereignty is a sacred right then you would have to parcel land off to every fritz, hans and albert that asks for it in the name of any national identity tehy can think of. My understanding is that germany has a lot of former nations that would leave every time there is a dispute if it was that easy.
When it comes to soverignty undiluted by additional humanitarian or representative concerns it reverts to might makes right, how much you are willing to fight to have the flag above your head your colour and how much adversity you are willing to suffer.
Indepenance is genrally a means not an end, not a cause people fight for its own sake.
Well there were more Britons than boers in it!
There were also more Russians than Ukrainians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...
And more Native Americans than British in America...
And more Palestinians than Jews in Palestine...
As for leaving a sovereign nation, IIRC your argument was that they were afraid to be incorporated/conquered, not that they were already part and wanted to secede. That's a different starting point, isn't it?
The UK is already part of the EU, should the EU force the UK to stay using violent means if necessary because one can't just let anyone leave a union to do their own thing?
If the referendum is close, one can even say that there are a lot of EU citizens in there and we need to make sure they're not oppressed by the nasty British separatist rebels.
Pannonian
06-04-2016, 18:45
There were also more Russians than Ukrainians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...
And more Native Americans than British in America...
And more Palestinians than Jews in Palestine...
As for leaving a sovereign nation, IIRC your argument was that they were afraid to be incorporated/conquered, not that they were already part and wanted to secede. That's a different starting point, isn't it?
The UK is already part of the EU, should the EU force the UK to stay using violent means if necessary because one can't just let anyone leave a union to do their own thing?
If the referendum is close, one can even say that there are a lot of EU citizens in there and we need to make sure they're not oppressed by the nasty British separatist rebels.
I'm voting to stay, but be careful of your accusations. The Brexit boys have some real grievances against the stay campaign, that you're making light of.
InsaneApache
06-04-2016, 20:05
I'm voting to stay, but be careful of your accusations. The Brexit boys have some real grievances against the stay campaign, that you're making light of.
Aye with friends like the EU, who needs enemies?
Pannonian
06-04-2016, 20:10
Aye with friends like the EU, who needs enemies?
There could be worse. We English weren't too happy either when the Scots voted on independence. Similar arguments exist in both cases, and there is certainly no moral superiority for one union whilst favouring exit from the other.
The referendum represents an abrogation of their responsibility on the part of our elected representatives while the two cases are made with half-truths spun until it is impossible to judge the reality of the claims. People are making up their minds on a crucial issue in an atmosphere of confusion and ignorance in which passion counts for more than fact.
This is no way to run a country.
Greyblades
06-04-2016, 20:24
Yes, which is why we have a representary democracy and not a direct one. Blame the Scots for setting the precident.
There were also more Russians than Ukrainians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...
And more Native Americans than British in America...
And more Palestinians than Jews in Palestine...I was joking, the british didnt use them it to excuse annexing transvaal, they used them invading the cape colony to do that.
As for leaving a sovereign nation, IIRC your argument was that they were afraid to be incorporated/conquered, not that they were already part and wanted to secede. That's a different starting point, isn't it?Yes. Hence why I'm arguing with gilrandir in the other thread over that comparison.
The UK is already part of the EU, should the EU force the UK to stay using violent means if necessary because one can't just let anyone leave a union to do their own thing?The EU isnt a nation state (yet) despite its pretentions continued membership is determined as entirely voluntary, if that were to change and you did try to keep people by force, well, I hope you have a lot of force because there will suddenly be a lot more nations trying to leave.
If the referendum is close, one can even say that there are a lot of EU citizens in there and we need to make sure they're not oppressed by the nasty British separatist rebels.
Maybe when we start denying them voting rights, or start landing troops in normandy... again.
Pannonian
06-05-2016, 00:38
Yes, which is why we have a representary democracy and not a direct one. Blame the Scots for setting the precident.
I was joking, the british didnt use them it to excuse annexing transvaal, they used them invading the cape colony to do that.
Yes. Hence why I'm arguing with gilrandir in the other thread over that comparison.
The EU isnt a nation state (yet) despite its pretentions continued membership is determined as entirely voluntary, if that were to change and you did try to keep people by force, well, I hope you have a lot of force because there will suddenly be a lot more nations trying to leave.
Maybe when we start denying them voting rights, or start landing troops in normandy... again.
There's a statue of a bloke on a horse in Montreuil sur Mer, probably better known nowadays as the town where Jean Valjean was mayor, that commemorates when Germany tried to incorporate France into their empire. The Germans took exception to him in 1940 and melted him down, but it was recast after they got kicked back out of France.
The Brexit boys have some real grievances against the stay campaign, that you're making light of.
Serious question as that expression is rather new to me. Does it mean:
a) I'm taking it too lightly and it is a serious issue
or
b) I'm shining a light on something I may not want in the open (and may attract unwanted attention)
???
I can see both interpretations work. :shrug:
Gilrandir
06-05-2016, 05:39
There were also more Russians than Ukrainians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...
The latter is wrong. Ukrainians dominate in any region except Crimea (yellow is for Ukrainians):
18405
Perhaps you meant Russian speakers?
People are making up their minds on a crucial issue in an atmosphere of confusion and ignorance in which passion counts for more than fact.
This is no way to run a country.
This is the usual way with referenda and running countries.
Pannonian
06-05-2016, 10:11
Serious question as that expression is rather new to me. Does it mean:
a) I'm taking it too lightly and it is a serious issue
or
b) I'm shining a light on something I may not want in the open (and may attract unwanted attention)
???
I can see both interpretations work. :shrug:
Treating such a proposition lightly, as if making fun of. Certain Europeans have rather more rights in the UK than is reasonable (more than UK citizens have in their country). If anyone seriously pushes the argument that you're proposing, then I'd support redressing that issue. And you know what, if that happens, people like yourself would blame the UK for acting to redress the balance, rather than people like yourself for drawing attention to that imbalance in the first place. It's always the case, that people like yourself like putting yourselves on a moral pedestal, whilst never taking responsibility for the consequences of your words.
Treating such a proposition lightly, as if making fun of. Certain Europeans have rather more rights in the UK than is reasonable (more than UK citizens have in their country). If anyone seriously pushes the argument that you're proposing, then I'd support redressing that issue. And you know what, if that happens, people like yourself would blame the UK for acting to redress the balance, rather than people like yourself for drawing attention to that imbalance in the first place. It's always the case, that people like yourself like putting yourselves on a moral pedestal, whilst never taking responsibility for the consequences of your words.
Myself thinks that yourself knows a lot more about myself than myself does, but thank yourself for the explanation.
The latter is wrong. Ukrainians dominate in any region except Crimea (yellow is for Ukrainians):
18405
Perhaps you meant Russian speakers?
I thought so but just didn't care enough as the point stands either way.
Or maybe I should say: Not according to RT...
Gilrandir
06-05-2016, 14:47
Certain Europeans have rather more rights in the UK than is reasonable (more than UK citizens have in their country).
It makes sense. The British already dwarf even powers-that-be:
http://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2016/06/angela-merkel-francois-hollande-and.html
InsaneApache
06-05-2016, 14:54
It makes sense. The British already dwarf even powers-that-be:
http://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2016/06/angela-merkel-francois-hollande-and.html
Except one of them was bought without taxpayers money. Talk about apples and oranges! :dizzy2:
Gilrandir
06-05-2016, 15:15
Except one of them was bought without taxpayers money. Talk about apples and oranges! :dizzy2:
You are taking it too seriously. It was just a funny picture.
Except one of them was bought without taxpayers money. Talk about apples and oranges! :dizzy2:
I'm pretty sure all of them were bought with money from taxpayers.
lol, this is painfull, that unelected Juncker is absolutily hammered he can hardly stand, that drunk http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/06/video_jeanclaude_juncker_straa.html#comments
https://i.imgur.com/yKlrzL0.png
Beskar who is telling you that you can reform the EU? Look at the structure of the EU commision unelected politbureau, you can not fire them or vote them out,
Personally this makes you unfit to be moderator, your thought process is not rational hope is a fools virtue, so you have blind faith that for some reason the EU will magically be reformed and there that rationalises a decision to vote in and wait for a so called reform which isn't even a given. ALARM BELLS RINGING!!!!! So you're voting on a whim/a construct of your brain, the EUSSR has brainwashed you much like the belief in the USSR of russian citizens during the cold war.
Lol the day when mass media call the Dalai Lama a bigot! also the EU totalitarianism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCRbZ0cOnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pc00WS6VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRareMjXJog
Now who decide this the EU parliament ? Nope the EU commision again no votes took place pure totalitarianism
Pannonian
06-06-2016, 20:38
LOL at someone arguing for free speech, yet in the same paragraph saying that someone is unfit to be moderator due to his views. Either that's some breathtaking hypocrisy right there, or a total lack of self-awareness. Going by whatever else you've posted, I'd go for the latter. The former requires a certain minimum level of intelligence to attain.
caan you read i said "personally". I am for free speech hence why its my opinion im not the site owner am i? your not for free speech so on one miscontrued opinion of m sentence you will delegitimase everything ive said. I enjoy my limited free speech In britain hence why i'm voting out for many a reason and now not to be subjected to these new directives issued to all social media companies and a mandatory Government ID to access social media. Your foolishness thinks i dont want Beskar having free speech when i'm clearly expressing my opinion that Beskar may be unfit to be moderating our comments. Low IQ? pot calling the kettle black?
Pannonian
06-06-2016, 21:00
caan you read i said "personally". I am for free speech hence why its my opinion im not the site owner am i? your not for free speech so on one miscontrued opinion of m sentence you will delegitimase everything ive said. I enjoy my limited free speech In britain hence why i'm voting out for many a reason and now not to be subjected to these new directives issued to all social media companies and a mandatory Government ID to access social media. Your foolishness thinks i dont want Beskar having free speech when i'm clearly expressing my opinion that Beskar may be unfit to be moderating our comments. Low IQ? pot calling the kettle black?
Is your native language English?
Explain to me ho i am impeding Beskars Free speeach?
Pannonian
06-06-2016, 21:13
Explain to me ho i am impeding Beskars Free speeach?
I think your poor communication skills in the English language is impeding understanding what the heck it is that you're going on about. Hence my enquiry as to whether English is your native language.
Pannonian
06-06-2016, 21:28
I rest case
Whether or not you're for free speech, you're certainly not for comprehensible speeach (sic).
its free speech i can speaka english howver i fish Haha i play with you. English is my first language but i'm being lazy. actually its parkinsons and tourrETEs combined thatadsgf hl'''',gfdhss mdaskw mew SSPEECH THIS WAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y
I am clearly known for my totalitarian censorship of pro-speech. Today, I permanently banned two members, one for writing he could provide plumbing services in Pakistan for a reasonable price, and the other apparently knew of some "hot kinky ladies" in my local area which were apparently waiting for "me".
Jesting aside, hope is necessary in every day living. It is the enthusiasm which makes us get up each morning, and actually try to make something out of life. In a way, you are a believer of hope Lizardo. You come in threads like these, and you attempt to inform us in your special way, hoping we are convinced and swayed by your arguments, trying to make a difference in the world.
Will the EU reform? The fact is, the desire for reform needs political capital. People who are on the gravy train do not want to rock the boat, unless they need to. There are many factors against EU reform, and ultimately, the biggest one is also its biggest critic. Nationalism.
The EU is a construct which is intended to be a partnership between countries towards achieving several important and reaching political and economical goals. It is this construct and framework of unity which can bring about these changes more effectively and more adequately. But the thing is with partnerships, and teams, is that not everyone is equal. This is fundamentally a good thing, as diversity, the adoption of different roles by the partners, can make things work more effective (see Belbin). However, a big hurdle to this co-operation is national interest.
One criticism, as you mentioned yourself, are the EU commision. But what is the commission and who are these evil unelected commissioners.
Who appoints these commissioners?: It is the nations themselves of course. So the UK has a commissioner, so does France, so does Germany... all 28 members in fact.
What do they do?: They represent the national interest of the individual member states within the European Union.
What happens if we get rid of them?: National governments will have a decreased say in how the EU is run.
Why aren't they elected?: They could be, but our governments choose not to.
Why?: Because the government wants increased control of the affairs of the EU. This is part of why Cameron and Merkel meet up for coffee, to discuss their EU ambitions and plans.
Now, as you commented Lizardo. You want countries to leave the evil EU, because of National Interest. Citing the institutions built for National Interest as the reason for leaving. But if you had to stay and increase your National Interest in the EU, you would empower the commissioners.
It is this oxymoronic, paradoxical, self-fulfilling arrangement, where there is a distinct element of people who want to promote national interest within and out the EU.
Want to know what the solution is to this? It is Fragony's favourite cited phrase. "Ever closer union". By becoming closer, the EU would disband and eliminate the commission, then it could give rise to an EU with a democratic mandate and supported by the European people.
Furunculus said it once on here: "I dislike the EU, as it is not democratic. But I do not want to become democratic, as it would then have a democratic mandate which represents us, thus we cannot leave." It is a nationalist leaning rhetoric where the biggest barriers to democratic reform are those who with national interests, and it is the same people who criticise the EU for not reforming, whilst they are the barrier which prevents it.
The European Union needs reform, there is no doubt about it. I can start listing them off. Want to hear a couple?
European-wide minimum wage. Fix the disparity in Europe, bring about fair compensation for peoples work. This would prevent internal migration of people, because either in the West or the East, doing Job A will get you Pay A, instead of the mismatch system.
Increase of Democracy within the EU system, and increased powers for a reformed European Parliament. An elected European President. Because Democratic mandate is important and should not be forgotten.
Increased accountability. Obvious reasons.
Of course, being sensible is a lost art.
We could vote out of the EU, citing NAFTA, when Britain is American's lapdog and will sign the dotted line as soon as we leave anyway, with no discussion or debate. At least the EU challenged the treaty and kept pushing for amendments, which it is why it is taking so long, opposed to being signed in 2012. Thing is, Europe has protected Britain from itself. There is a distinct fear that the supposed "freedom" will led to some very significant disasters in policies.
Side-Note:
This was brought up by someone voting out -
"We are not a proper partnership anyway, if we were, and if we looked out for eachother. We would go in and save Greece, eliminating their loans and help rebuild the country."
Later on -
"I don't care about the other european nations, we won't want to give them any money or bail them out"
So... doomed if you do, doomed if you don't? Rational.
Terrible, who would believe Breitbart, a US conservative news network, on European matters?
The only thing important to them is the US and if they think they can get an advantage through divide and conquer, they would immediately do that, and probably are doing it. I could also cite US laws to show what a restrictive dictatorship it is. I mean you can even get fined for littering there, why don't you have the freedom to poison everyone around you with plastic waste because it seems so harmless to just drop something? Arrests for jaywalking (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-11-13/apd-jaywalking-arrests-spark-outcry/)? What happened to your freedom to cross a street in the Breitbart dictatorship?
And since you meantion Britain Lizardo, eh (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-banned-from-broadcasting-from-disability-benefit-cuts-protest-in-parliament-a6948046.html), what (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-to-be-given-powers-to-ban-peaceful-protests-that-might-disturb-local-residents-8940535.html)? Is Britain turning into a dictatorship even without the help of the EU? It already has zones where protesting is banned, widespread surveillance including a government that stores all of your, and my, internet communication. Explain to me what gives your government the right to store my internet communication when I'm not a citizen of the UK? When did I ever get to vote on that??? These are unelected bureaucrats sniffing around in my personal life and I never got a say or an option to stop this? Again, what democratic process can I use to make this stop? You say it's not opkay if people in Brussels influence your life? Well, is it okay then if people in London influence mine?
Beskar what do you see the need for the EU and what you like to become of the EU?
And also In your eyes if you could reform what would you do?
I personally do not see a need for a political organisation encompassing Europe, each country and it's people have their own agenda, GDP, wealth, working hours (Spain and the Siesta), culture, industry the list goes on. You can not bring about a european wide minimum wage it may well cripple economies and the imports and exports, for instance the Euro currency has decimated spain the cost of living was great in Spain with the peseta now it'ts shot up with the Euro, the Eu can only work with similar countries and industries thats why you've only seen France,Germany,Britain as the powerhouses and the nordic countries and Italy cling on, but with spain portugal and eastern europe its caused a massive brain drain only benefitting the powerhouses as i mentioned. And bullying greece and portugal also spain into submission via the Troika can not justified. ALso making all european nations produce goods of equal or better quality will not benefit the poorer EU nations people.
"We could vote out of the EU, citing NAFTA, when Britain is American's lapdog and will sign the dotted line as soon as we leave anyway, with no discussion or debate. At least the EU challenged the treaty and kept pushing for amendments, which it is why it is taking so long, opposed to being signed in 2012. Thing is, Europe has protected Britain from itself. There is a distinct fear that the supposed "freedom" will led to some very significant disasters in policies."
This not a given this is speculation, Iceland and Switzerland are not America's lapdog, well maybe considering Swiss cooperation with the FIFA scandal, I agree in some respects EU has protected us from awful Trade Deals. but the EU has also prevented us from good ones with emerging economies. EU sanctions of Russia have not been welcomed by the populace. The only mtrade deal in the world that stipulates freedom of movement of people isEUWWRONDGS
Jesting aside, hope is necessary in every day living. It is the enthusiasm which makes us get up each morning, and actually try to make something out of life. In a way, you are a believer of hope Lizardo. You come in threads like these, and you attempt to inform us in your special way, hoping we are convinced and swayed by your arguments, trying to make a difference in the world.
Very true lol.
Side-Note:
This was brought up by someone voting out -
I now approve Beskar as moderator
Tge eurozone is going to tank beginning with france mark my words
Terrible, who would believe Breitbart, a US conservative news network, on European matters?
The only thing important to them is the US and if they think they can get an advantage through divide and conquer, they would immediately do that, and probably are doing it. I could also cite US laws to show what a restrictive dictatorship it is. I mean you can even get fined for littering there, why don't you have the freedom to poison everyone around you with plastic waste because it seems so harmless to just drop something? Arrests for jaywalking (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-11-13/apd-jaywalking-arrests-spark-outcry/)? What happened to your freedom to cross a street in the Breitbart dictatorship?
And since you meantion Britain Lizardo, eh (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-banned-from-broadcasting-from-disability-benefit-cuts-protest-in-parliament-a6948046.html), what (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-to-be-given-powers-to-ban-peaceful-protests-that-might-disturb-local-residents-8940535.html)? Is Britain turning into a dictatorship even without the help of the EU? It already has zones where protesting is banned, widespread surveillance including a government that stores all of your, and my, internet communication. Explain to me what gives your government the right to store my internet communication when I'm not a citizen of the UK? When did I ever get to vote on that??? These are unelected bureaucrats sniffing around in my personal life and I never got a say or an option to stop this? Again, what democratic process can I use to make this stop? You say it's not opkay if people in Brussels influence your life? Well, is it okay then if people in London influence mine?
And you think The EU commisison will make all this better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj64KQYS4ro
Beskar what do you see the need for the EU and what you like to become of the EU?
The EU has a purpose in its concept and theory. In some areas, it does this successfully, in others, it does not. In some areas, it does it dreadfully. The EU does need serious reform, I have never shy-ed from this fact.
But to answer your questions directly...
The need for greater international cooperation is rather self-explanatory, even if it is purely self-interest. We are living in an increasingly globalised world, and this has accelerated with the dawn of the internet. We have long gone past national boundaries, and on this forum, you see this in action. We have Fragony the loveable dutch guy, you got Husar the germanic comedian, and even the Yorkshire Apache. We are in different countries, yet many of the posters share the same fundamental values, even if they have different views on the solution.
Thing is, there are a great many people who communicate regularly and they come to share in this pan-national identity. In many ways, we are friends and family, the only difference between me and you Lizardo could be I was born on one side of a line and you the other. Yet despite the similarities, we are classified as being supposedly radically different, because of this line some random people decided simply exists.
As you have stated in this thread, you want accountability and democratic representation. I want this as well, and I want you to have it too, and for your comments, it sounds like you want me to have it as well. What is there making us so different when we want to have the same thing? Why does me having democratic representation have to be different to you having democratic representation? Why can we not have both?
Going back to my earlier point, we are living in an increasingly globalised world. We see multinational companies, nations, and NGO's, take advantage of the inequalities between nations in order to exploit them. It could be closing down factories in the US, whilst hiring cheaper labour in India. It could be putting your finances in the Seychelles in order to avoid tax regulation. It could be having your headquarters in Luxembourg, who then sells products to your coffee-shops in Britain "at a loss", in order to avoid paying tax in the UK., arguing the stores there are making a loss, which is "forgiven" by the company. There is also the trillions in transactions going on this second in between the fluctuating currency markets, with the wealth of the world growing increasingly going into the hands of less and less people. There is an economical need and requirement for partnerships to avoid economic exploitation.
As for Trade, the EU streamlined the process significantly. In the past, in order to trade with another EU country, you would have to specifically tailor your product for that market and its regulations. So to trade with everyone within the EU, you would basically have to have 28 separate products and packaging as a minimum. This is a lot of "red tape" and economic wastage. The process was streamlined by having all 28 countries agreeing to the same set of standards, so now products and services can occur across Europe. Now, this is strangely the reverse of the Eurosceptic argument, because you are probably familiar with Brussels apparently telling us how to do these regulations. The thing is, these regulations are done in cooperation, and it produces less red-tape overall, saving companies millions, so when people argue it is the otherway around, you really need to question what they mean. Usually, it is to argue about some trivial thing which would make no noticeable difference.
Obviously, there is the issue of brevity, as I could keep on continuing these arguments, but the bottom line is: We gain more by working together than not doing.
And this is what I want from the EU, where we have a lot of shared culture and values. Better partnership, better cooperation, better tomorrow. This could be further expanded to the Anglosphere.
And also In your eyes if you could reform what would you do?
I briefly covered three of them in my earlier post, and these were mostly broad and general. It would be along those lines.
But the European-Minimum wage is something that is really needed. It would also "solve" the migrant crisis (within Europe) which people are fearing.
I personally do not see a need for a political organisation encompassing Europe, each country and it's people have their own agenda, GDP, wealth, working hours, culture, industry the list goes on.
"Have their own agenda" - Why is this a good thing? If i have an agenda of "lets ban Lizardo", clearly you would be unhappy with this agenda. Now, if we had the agenda of "lets work together to improve the Backroom", that is something we could both work upon, together, and not conflicting.
"GDP" - and why is an individual GDP in nations required? What is special about this?
"Working Hours/Wages" - As you see in my earlier comments, I am really opposed to differences in this. People should be able to work as much as they are willing to, but they cannot be contractually obliged to go above a certain amount of hours. This is very important to prevent wage-slave labour, and because the health impact of working too much, especially against your will, is significant. There are reasons concepts such as minimum wage, and maximum contract hours exist, and these are to protect people. Because Husar is in Germany for example, doesn't make it less relevant than it is here. It is one of those 'human' things that is shared between all of us, and there is no reason for these differences to exist.
"Culture" - In Europe, we have a rather open cultural where we all share and influence eachother. These might be traditional styles of dress, or the food we eat. This doesn't need to change in any radical manner, unless a radical change is required. (ie: obviously things such as non-consensual ritualised cannibalism should be banned/changed)
There isn't any "real" reasons against a shared human identity. There are reasons, but these are usually hollow, nonsensical, or different priorities, but they are objections which challenge on a fundamental level against the concepts in themselves.
You significantly edited your post whilst I was replying, so I will briefly address some of your additions...
working hours (Spain and the Siesta)
Regional issue which doesn't change anything. 9-5 working is not enforced by law. People and businesses are free to use what ever hours are suitable for them and their consumers. So there are no objections anywhere to Siestas.
I only object to forcing people to work 60 hour a week, for example. It is really inappropriate and detrimental to their health. If you happen to love your work and want to do 60 hours? Then feel free, I have absolutely no objection to you choosing to do that. The key word here is "choice". I want you, and other people, to have it.
You can not bring about a european wide minimum wage it may well cripple economies and the imports and exports So your own economy being crippled by businesses sacking/unemploying people, to employ people in worse conditions for cheaper costs... is right?
Sorry, but capitalising on others inequality and exploiting them is not a moral argument you can use.
The costs can be off-set by subsidising those poorer countries, if there is indeed an economical union. This is part and parcel of an economical union in concept.
for instance the Euro currency has decimated spain the cost of living was great in Spain with the peseta
My Uncle used to love peseta and the dratma. He said about the good old days where their economies were unable to support the currency, so each year when he went on holiday, he used to be able to buy a lot more goods for his money. being able to afford a lot more luxurious holidays, whilst the common Greek and Spanish were being failed by their states. He dislikes how the Euro has made things a lot more expensive over in these countries, because the workers are getting fairer wages and incomes reflecting European averages.
This not a given, this is speculation.
You're correct, it is. It is a pretty good one at that. Especially with the Tories in government. I really wish to be wrong.
And you think The EU commisison will make all this better?
I think a more integrated Europe will be more likely to prevent this and threatening to leave is the opposite direction from closer integration.
I don't think the EU commission will fix US cops arresting people for jaywalking though, if you meant that.
As more and more EU countries use referendums the EU will disintegrate. News just in the ECHR has declared illegal migrants can not be jailed.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/eu-court-rules-illegal-migrants-cannot-be-jailed/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Nt8sQvH6I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix4Vmqw1bk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2qUmM2EdA
This monster will fall, for many it's the question of 'what now'
Pannonian
06-07-2016, 22:35
When people spam youtube videos to make their case, you know they don't understand their own arguments. First the SNP, then Corbyn, now Brexit. Mindless cultlike fanatics, with the common theme of thinking that number of youtube videos and social media followers equals a substantial case.
Greyblades
06-07-2016, 23:15
There was a question hour this evening on ITV where Farage and Cameron each had a half hour of answering questions from a diverse audience ranging from nurses, buisness owners, students and others. Find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hefD0Aim40
A good showing for both parties I think, I am somewhat biased for farage but I do think cameron held his own fairly well, though I do think it was a bad idea to found some of the argument for staying on faith in the ability or willingness of the current establisment to stand up to the EU.
I was somewhat perturbed by the amount of leeway the moderator gave that girl who tried to pain Farage as racist.
There was a question hour this evening on ITV where Farage.
A good showing for both parties I think, I am somewhat biased for farage but I do think cameron held his own fairly well, though I do think it was a bad idea to found some of the argument for staying on faith in the ability or willingness of the current establisment to stand up to the EU.
I was somewhat perturbed by the amount of leeway the moderator gave that girl who tried to pain Farage as racist.
ITV knew what they were getting with her that's why they selected that racist, yeah she totally disrecpted Nigel.
CAMERON IS A PUSSY COULDNT 1VS 1 FARAGE AGAIN. this was a watered down confession in a church!! It's like he cant share a stage with an opponent on numerous debates its rigged for what he wants.
Gilrandir
06-08-2016, 10:23
This monster will fall, for many it's the question of 'what now'
Another monster, this time from the East, to whom you will succumb.
Elmetiacos
06-08-2016, 15:54
And she is really indignat that the Turks had a brawl in the parliament. The Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments do so from time to time and ...? Should the UK stop any contacts with them?
Old men like me can even remember when there was a brawl in the UK parliament, involving Michael Hesseltine picking up the ceremonial mace and threatening to throw it at the Labour Party opposite...
Officially converting to Islam, can't beat them join 'em
InsaneApache
06-09-2016, 03:43
I thought this was quite good. Just a bit of fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBz6y6ZrmD8
I thought this was quite good. Just a bit of fun.
Do we stay or do we go? This video just tells us no. Just think about it.
Unfortunately, the amount of cretins on both sides are too damn high. I wish there was a third option like... "dissolve our current government and ban them from office".
InsaneApache
06-09-2016, 04:25
Well the good news is that the fibbing buttered new potato 'Call Me Dave' is finished in either event. The Tories, unlike Labour are ruthless to their leaders who let them down.
Elmetiacos
06-09-2016, 10:28
Well the good news is that the fibbing buttered new potato 'Call Me Dave' is finished in either event. The Tories, unlike Labour are ruthless to their leaders who let them down.
But kick out Cameron and Osborne and who do you get instead? Boris is a con man and outside the capital most people think he's a floppy haired clown who quotes schoolboy Latin and shouts, "Wiff waff". Mad Michael Gove has the charisma of a well thumbed copy of A F L Beeston's Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. Enter some other former Eton and Oxbridge spin doctor from the back benches? What's the point of that?
Pannonian
06-09-2016, 10:33
But kick out Cameron and Osborne and who do you get instead? Boris is a con man and outside the capital most people think he's a floppy haired clown who quotes schoolboy Latin and shouts, "Wiff waff". Mad Michael Gove has the charisma of a well thumbed copy of A F L Beeston's Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. Enter some other former Eton and Oxbridge spin doctor from the back benches? What's the point of that?
Boris Johnson is a hero from HIGNFY. That's all his fans need.
Look who it is the two self righteous leftists showed up right on time to re-educate us just when the government resorts to anti democratic measures to.ensure a a win for remain or a voiding of the referendum with the convenient 'glitch' in the system. Spending further tax payers money outside of the campaign allowance (FYI the government is for remain) to target 'underrepresented' voters!
Within the stipulations all votes cast beyond the deadline can be considered voided by the EU
Senior figures were even said to think that “implausibly high” website traffic at 10.15pm on Tuesday pointed to someone deliberately crashing the system and there were warnings the law change paves the way to legal challenges to a close referendum result.
Funny you talk about Latin you hypocrite you've got a latin sentence as your signature the irony oh the irony. Most people actually like BORIS than you think he has the highest approval rating of any politician in the UK
Gilrandir
06-09-2016, 11:50
Old men like me can even remember when there was a brawl in the UK parliament, involving Michael Hesseltine picking up the ceremonial mace and threatening to throw it at the Labour Party opposite...
And that is why the UK should be evicted from the cohort of the civilized European nations. So Brexit is not an opportunity, it is self-flagellation.
Gilrandir just wants the UK to float Ukraines corrupt economic system. and perhaps a sparring session with putin.
Israel the land of god's chosen people, have thrown their lot in with Russia it seems.
Spaziba Bibi.
Elmetiacos
06-09-2016, 12:29
Look who it is the two self righteous leftists showed up right on time to re-educate us just when the government resorts to anti democratic measures to.ensure a a win for remain or a voiding of the referendum with the convenient 'glitch' in the system. Spending further tax payers money outside of the campaign allowance (FYI the government is for remain) to target 'underrepresented' voters!
Making sure more people can vote is anti-democratic? This is a telling point - the Brexiters say they are campaigning for democracy, but then their actions speak louder: they try and disenfranchise as many people as they can in order to rely on a low turnout because they think it favours them, while Leave.eu's Arron Banks, forever moaning about unelected Commissioners having power over elected national governments, talks of trying to use the unelected courts to override the elected government. And good old Farrage, who, when there was a second vote in Ireland over the Lisbon Treaty said it was a "travesty of democracy" and the sort of thing Robert Mugabe would do, has said that if his side loses, he wants a second referendum.
Within the stipulations all votes cast beyond the deadline can be considered voided by the EU
Senior figures were even said to think that “implausibly high” website traffic at 10.15pm on Tuesday pointed to someone deliberately crashing the system and there were warnings the law change paves the way to legal challenges to a close referendum result.
Once again it's a conspiracy! Quite how such a legal challenge would work is anyone's guess. It reminds me of the foxhunting nutjobs trying to declare all legislation since 1949 null and void with another such Dungeons & Dragons legal challenge.
Funny you talk about Latin you hypocrite you've got a latin sentence as your signature the irony oh the irony. Most people actually like BORIS than you think he has the highest approval rating of any politician in the UK My signature does not have a Latin sentence in it. Re-read.
Pannonian
06-09-2016, 12:44
Look who it is the two self righteous leftists showed up right on time to re-educate us just when the government resorts to anti democratic measures to.ensure a a win for remain or a voiding of the referendum with the convenient 'glitch' in the system. Spending further tax payers money outside of the campaign allowance (FYI the government is for remain) to target 'underrepresented' voters!
Within the stipulations all votes cast beyond the deadline can be considered voided by the EU
Senior figures were even said to think that “implausibly high” website traffic at 10.15pm on Tuesday pointed to someone deliberately crashing the system and there were warnings the law change paves the way to legal challenges to a close referendum result.
Funny you talk about Latin you hypocrite you've got a latin sentence as your signature the irony oh the irony. Most people actually like BORIS than you think he has the highest approval rating of any politician in the UK
What the hell is wrong with getting more people to vote? Everyone in the UK has a single vote, no more no less. Unless in your opinion "underrepresented voters" should remain at home and not vote.
Lizardo (King Komodo of the Threatened lizard people) ... will perform a tactical retreat and arrive to open a can of whoop ass by nightfall.....
Common Tongue Translation:
ILL BE BACK
InsaneApache
06-09-2016, 14:23
But kick out Cameron and Osborne and who do you get instead? Boris is a con man and outside the capital most people think he's a floppy haired clown who quotes schoolboy Latin and shouts, "Wiff waff". Mad Michael Gove has the charisma of a well thumbed copy of A F L Beeston's Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. Enter some other former Eton and Oxbridge spin doctor from the back benches? What's the point of that?
I'm old enough to remember when the Tories voted for Thatcher as leader. She was a rank outsider and came from nowhere. See Corbyn as an example.
Gilrandir
06-09-2016, 14:48
Gilrandir just wants the UK to float Ukraines corrupt economic system. and perhaps a sparring session with putin.
If you don't understand the irony of my statement I can do nothing about it.
Greyblades
06-09-2016, 19:03
But kick out Cameron and Osborne and who do you get instead? Boris is a con man and outside the capital most people think he's a floppy haired clown who quotes schoolboy Latin and shouts, "Wiff waff". Mad Michael Gove has the charisma of a well thumbed copy of A F L Beeston's Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. Enter some other former Eton and Oxbridge spin doctor from the back benches? What's the point of that?
I'd think someone who wanted to remain in the EU would find comfort in the repetitive nature of Tory leadership. Or do you actually believe the desire to remain somehow makes the Tory more virtuous in his conduct.
A change in the composition of the Tory upper ranks would be hard pressed to make things worse than it already is and retain its majority.
Pannonian
06-09-2016, 19:52
I'd think someone who wanted to remain in the EU would find comfort in the repetitive nature of Tory leadership. Or do you actually believe the desire to remain somehow makes the Tory more virtuous in his conduct.
A change in the composition of the Tory upper ranks would be hard pressed to make things worse than it already is and retain its majority.
There is never a major change in the composition of the Tory upper ranks, which consist of the country's ruling class, eg. the incident with Cameron and that pig. They form the upper strata of the other parties too, but at least the other parties, Labour especially, residually draw on other sections of our society as well. As for trouble in the Tory PP: there is zero chance of them losing their majority in the Commons, unless they're really, really determined to perform seppuku.
Greyblades
06-09-2016, 20:36
I disagree.
The conservative party is poised to split over the referrendum as it is. The junior doctors strike and the recent controversies over zero hour contracts lead me to believe we building up to a breaking point in the next decade or so where patience with the conservatives will run out.
Both labour and the conservatives have soiled the bed and unless we were to see major growths of competency in either of them we will see side parties new and old grow by siphoning off dissaffected voters.
Likely not enough to replace either main party but almost certainly enough to disrupt any single party majority forming in 2020 or 2025.
InsaneApache
06-11-2016, 13:20
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3778/2059/original.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c
Elmetiacos
06-12-2016, 16:41
There is no comparison between the UK economy and the Norwegian economy; the Norwegian workforce is less than 3 million compared to over 30 million for the UK. The economic activities which earn money for the two nations are starkly different (the public sector in Norway is so large it would no doubt be called Stalinism by many of the Free Market Everything Brexiteers) so whatever was said by whom to whom is irrelevant to the British debate, even if everything this woman from a small agrarian party is true and that the warnings about damage to the Norwegian economy were so greatly exaggerated, it doesn't follow that similar warnings can be ignored vis-à-vis the UK. Because a boy cried wolf doesn't mean it's safe to ignore the bear behind you.
InsaneApache
06-12-2016, 16:55
t doesn't follow that similar warnings can be ignored vis-à-vis the UK. Because a boy cried wolf doesn't mean it's safe to ignore the bear behind you.
Not to mention WWIII, likkle dicky birds dying in droves, vote leave and your pension gets it! etc....etc......etc.....etc
Oh and whatever you do don't mention Turkey.
Damn and blast I just did! :creep:
I can't believe the propaganda from either side (including yours, sorry). How am I supposed to vote in a sensible fashion?
Greyblades
06-13-2016, 08:10
Vote for the side who arent threatening to make thier doom and gloom predictions worse if they lose.
InsaneApache
06-13-2016, 10:57
I can't believe the propaganda from either side (including yours, sorry). How am I supposed to vote in a sensible fashion?
Forget all the arguments about trade, immigration and all the rest.
Do you want the ability to remove the politicians who make the laws?
If you do, then you should vote to leave.
In a nutshell.
Elmetiacos
06-13-2016, 16:13
Vote for the side who arent threatening to make thier doom and gloom predictions worse if they lose.
So that's don't vote at all then...
Elmetiacos
06-13-2016, 16:20
Not to mention WWIII, likkle dicky birds dying in droves, vote leave and your pension gets it! etc....etc......etc.....etc
Oh and whatever you do don't mention Turkey.
Damn and blast I just did! :creep:
I'm just pointing out that people on either side are wasting their time talking about Norway, whether it's, "We don't want to leave and end up like Norway" or, "We can leave and be just fine, Norway hasn't ever been in the EU" because Britain and Norway are completely different countries which may have similar political traditions but don't resemble each other economically in any way shape or form. As for Turkey, it's moving further and further from ever being in by virtue of Erdoğan turning it into an Islamist dictatorship.
Greyblades
06-13-2016, 23:28
So that's don't vote at all then...
I was unaware the french government were on the brexit side.
http://www.politico.eu/article/france-plan-for-a-bloody-brexit-eu-referendum-consequences-europe-hollande-david-cameron/
My wording was specific "threatening to make it worse" for all its faults the brexit campaign isnt openly planning on committing economic retaliation if they lose.
I'm just pointing out that people on either side are wasting their time talking about Norway, whether it's, "We don't want to leave and end up like Norway" or, "We can leave and be just fine, Norway hasn't ever been in the EU" because Britain and Norway are completely different countries which may have similar political traditions but don't resemble each other economically in any way shape or form. As for Turkey, it's moving further and further from ever being in by virtue of Erdoğan turning it into an Islamist dictatorship.
Your a fool to not think Erdogan has leverage over EU he's got Merkel by the balls. Got that satirist in court. On a whim he could expel thousands of migrants into Europe. He's even refused to take in any migrants back if turks don't get visa free travel. It's a bad deal we give him 6 billion which used to be 3 billion by the way for every migrant we don't want he sends us another. Next year it will be 10 billion this man has got EU by the balls. I could go on but I think I might be talking to a brick wall so I'll stop but heres a poem
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
Pannonian
06-14-2016, 03:33
Your a fool to not think Erdogan has leverage over EU he's got Merkel by the balls.
This is the problem when ill-educated people spout cliches to describe a situation without thinking through what they're saying. The "Your" instead of "You're" is also painful, but the metaphor at the end is particularly badly used. Unless Lizardo knows something the rest of the world doesn't.
Ah, Juncker again, a brexit will be the end of western-civilisation. Mom there is a scary newspaper under my bed
Elmetiacos
06-14-2016, 11:38
Ah, Juncker again, a brexit will be the end of western-civilisation. Mom there is a scary newspaper under my bed
You might at least speak English rather than American when discussing this...
Elmetiacos
06-14-2016, 11:45
Your a fool to not think Erdogan has leverage over EU he's got Merkel by the balls.
Project fear! Project fear! The scaremongers are trying to scare us with scary scares! Don't be scared of all the scariness! Oh and by the way run for your lives, the Turks are coming! We'll all be murdered in our beds!
:laugh4:
InsaneApache
06-14-2016, 13:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N_JeKJqkg
Only anecdotal but rather revealing.
Pannonian
06-14-2016, 13:32
I suspect that this will be like Iraq, Syria, Libya, in that I can see the plain idiocy of what's being decided, but we decide to walk straight into it anyway. And we'll be left to regret the decision for years after, while I shake my head and wonder what got into our heads, as we complain about "if we'd only known in hindsight", which I could see every step of the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N_JeKJqkg
Only anecdotal but rather revealing.
LOL i wonder why the guardian blocked it? keep it hush hush. it's fair use i presume the uploader wasnt monetising his videos?
Elmetiacos
06-14-2016, 19:59
I'm only guessing, but I suspect it may have been on copyright grounds, the reason being that the message says, "...content from The Guardian, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
Greyblades
06-14-2016, 22:47
Considering what that excuse has been used to do over the last 10 years on youtube it is safe to say that the Guardian is interested in copyright the same way China is.
I suspect that this will be like Iraq, Syria, Libya, in that I can see the plain idiocy of what's being decided, but we decide to walk straight into it anyway. And we'll be left to regret the decision for years after, while I shake my head and wonder what got into our heads, as we complain about "if we'd only known in hindsight", which I could see every step of the way.
Funny, I thought we didnt walk into syria, and now we're regretting it.
The EU is stagnant, fragile and in decline, we're in for hard times either way, brexit gives us back our border controls, saves us 8.5 billion a year (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/) and makes both Brussels and our own political parties, who have botrh screwed us in favour of the european project and/or themselves for the last 15-20/80 years, begin shitting themselves in panic.
Elmetiacos
06-14-2016, 23:09
The EU is stagnant, fragile and in decline, we're in for hard times either way, brexit gives us back our border controls, saves us 8.5 billion a year and gives us revenge on both political parties who have screwed us in favour of the european project for the last 15-20 years.
There will still be a Conservative government after the referendum, just one that will lurch to the right. As for "our" border controls, if that Conservative government really did think immigration was too high, was "out of control" then why did they let in another 188,000 non-EU immigrants? There is no way that the arch-free market politicians who are poised to take over from Cameron and Osborne would want to cut off a ready supply of cheap, wage suppressing labour. One of two things will happen: either, bearing in mind around two thirds of MPs don't want to leave the European Economic Area, we will still have free movement anyway and we've given up our votes and vetoes for fringe benefits, or we leave and immigration is just diverted from coming from Eastern Europe to coming from Asia and Africa, which being more visible and more liable to rhetoric about Islamisation, will result in those who wanted to reduce immigration moving from irrelevant UKIP to people with an inordinate fondness for torchlit parades and marching tunes. Nastiness ensues.
Greyblades
06-14-2016, 23:15
Even if we take that as true (which is simultaniously extremely cynical for the country and optimistic for the conservatives chances to remain intact/power past 2020) I see little difference between the two in terms of doom save for the fact that brexit gives us a chance, for in the EU we are at the whims of those to which we have no influence at all and who most certainly do not have our interests even close to their own.
Pannonian
06-14-2016, 23:52
Soddit.
Pannonian
06-14-2016, 23:57
There will still be a Conservative government after the referendum, just one that will lurch to the right. As for "our" border controls, if that Conservative government really did think immigration was too high, was "out of control" then why did they let in another 188,000 non-EU immigrants? There is no way that the arch-free market politicians who are poised to take over from Cameron and Osborne would want to cut off a ready supply of cheap, wage suppressing labour. One of two things will happen: either, bearing in mind around two thirds of MPs don't want to leave the European Economic Area, we will still have free movement anyway and we've given up our votes and vetoes for fringe benefits, or we leave and immigration is just diverted from coming from Eastern Europe to coming from Asia and Africa, which being more visible and more liable to rhetoric about Islamisation, will result in those who wanted to reduce immigration moving from irrelevant UKIP to people with an inordinate fondness for torchlit parades and marching tunes. Nastiness ensues.
Personally, I don't mind immigration from within the EU. Europe's population is at least mostly culturally akin to us, and they adapt readily enough in my experience, and they want to identify themselves as British. It's immigrants who don't want to integrate (or at least their descendants), who want to change Britain to be like where they've come from, that I don't want.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 04:54
The Commonwealth is filled with people who are more culturally akin to us and in some cases already identify as British to a small historical degree, but because of the EU we have to shun most of them in favour of a political block that is increasingly beginning to include the peoples you describe who dont want to integrate and want to change thier host nation.
Pannonian
06-15-2016, 09:41
The Commonwealth is filled with people who are more culturally akin to us and in some cases already identify as British to a small historical degree, but because of the EU we have to shun most of them in favour of a political block that is increasingly beginning to include the peoples you describe who dont want to integrate and want to change thier host nation.
Most of our troublemakers are from the Commonwealth (Pakistan).
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 09:56
As I said: "beginning", give it time; as turkey is let in and the migrants german has invited are made citizens and you will see an upswing in less than cooperative applicants, and we will be legally powerless to refuse them.
Pannonian
06-15-2016, 10:32
As I said: "beginning", give it time; as turkey is let in and the migrants german has invited are made citizens and you will see an upswing in less than cooperative applicants, and we will be legally powerless to refuse them.
Wasn't the UK the chief lobbier for the expansion of the EU to include Turkey? AFAIK we were the chief driver to include eastern Europe.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 10:40
Hence why I said i wanted to "make both Brussels and our own political parties, who have both screwed us in favour of the european project and/or themselves for the last 15-20/80 years, begin shitting themselves in panic."
I dont like our politicians, I do like how we have the option twice a decade of kicking them to the curb when they piss us off, that is more precious to me than a hundred dreams of a United Europe.
Depriving them of a retirement plan is good too.
Pannonian
06-15-2016, 11:00
Hence why I said i wanted to "make both Brussels and our own political parties, who have both screwed us in favour of the european project and/or themselves for the last 15-20/80 years, begin shitting themselves in panic."
I dont like our politicians, I do like how we have the option twice a decade of kicking them to the curb when they piss us off, that is more precious to me than a hundred dreams of a United Europe.
Depriving them of a retirement plan is good too.
All painfully reminiscent of the arguments during the Scottish referendum, when the Scots were disgruntled over how they have little to no influence over the government they get in Westminster, as later further demonstrated in the 2015 GE. The Scots looked at the economic arguments and decided that spiting the English wasn't worth economically shooting themselves in the foot. It looks like we're going to decide otherwise with the EU.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 11:10
The English and the Scots have a 300 year history of nearly unparalleled success and occasionally even friendship tieing us together and they were economically incapable of surviving alone. The British and the EU are tied together by a 45 year history of decline, bitterness, subversion and occasional naked contempt for eachother, and we can most certainly survive alone.
And the foot's blown either way, either dramatically now or in a quieter 10 year decline.
Elmetiacos
06-15-2016, 11:15
Hence why I said i wanted to "make both Brussels and our own political parties, who have both screwed us in favour of the european project and/or themselves for the last 15-20/80 years, begin shitting themselves in panic."
I dont like our politicians, I do like how we have the option twice a decade of kicking them to the curb when they piss us off, that is more precious to me than a hundred dreams of a United Europe.
Depriving them of a retirement plan is good too.
It's not as if all the politicians speak with one voice... voting a triumph for those well known anti-establishment mavericks Boris Johnson (Eton and Balliol, former Spectator editor, descendant of the Hannoverian royal family) Michael Gove (Oxford Union President, ex-BBC, chief toady to House Murdoch) not to mention privately educated former commodities broker Farrage, is only swapping one gang for a crazier one.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 11:21
An unbroken horse is better than one made lame.
They arent crazier, thats rather the point: the worst thing that happens is Boris gets in power and turns out to be Cameron 2.0, maybe he's exactly what we need to weather the storm, maybe he wont get in power at all as this is poised to end any semblence of coheisivness the Tories have.
We have the option to remove a Cameron 2.0 and undo what he does, we don't have that option with the EU comission, not in a peaceful manner anyway. And with the comission hanging around his neck Cameron 1.0 or anyone else in power is limited in what they are capable of changing to make things better, even if they want to.
Gilrandir
06-15-2016, 12:48
There will still be a Conservative government after the referendum, just one that will lurch to the right. As for "our" border controls, if that Conservative government really did think immigration was too high, was "out of control" then why did they let in another 188,000 non-EU immigrants? There is no way that the arch-free market politicians who are poised to take over from Cameron and Osborne would want to cut off a ready supply of cheap, wage suppressing labour.
So after Brexit you'll make another Brenter, and then yet another Brexit. Thus moving in and out you will bargain ever more advantageous conditions. So in a decade or so your shuttle policy will get into history books as a paragon of promoting national interest.
The English and the Scots have a 300 year history of nearly unparalleled success and occasionally even friendship tieing us together and they were economically incapable of surviving alone. The British and the EU are tied together by a 45 year history of decline, bitterness, subversion and occasional naked contempt for eachother, and we can most certainly survive alone.
Those emotions you find in the EU-UK relations were never absent from England-Scotland realtions either, and the deeper we go into history, the more controversial they were.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 14:47
That depends if you make a differentiation between high and lowlanders and why I said occasionally even friendship, point being england and scotland relations have had thier highs and lows, (the highs usually coinciding with beating up the french) whereas the EU has just been lows and plateaus of ambivilence.
InsaneApache
06-15-2016, 15:43
Remainiacs, the gift that just keeps on giving.
After the 'emergency' budget was trashed this morning we have 'St' Bob Geldof sticking two fingers up to working class fishermen worried about their jobs and calls 'em wankers.
Keep it up lads. A multi-millionaire shitting on the little people.
Gilrandir
06-15-2016, 16:06
I said occasionally even friendship,
I like it. Two peoples have lived in one country for 400 years and have developed only "occasional friendship". Way to go!
england and scotland relations have had thier highs and lows, (the highs usually coinciding with beating up the french)
Who was beating up the French? Certainly not the Scots - they have their Auld Alliance to revere, so relations between England and Scotland were not friendly at times of English-French wars, notably the Hundred Years War. Unless by "high relations" you mean hostilities.
whereas the EU has just been lows and plateaus of ambivilence.
An arbitrary statement. To my mind, the UK is the most special among the EU states and Cameron managed to negotiate even more concessions from the EU.
InsaneApache
06-15-2016, 16:29
Two peoples have lived in one country for 400 years
I think you'll find it's four.
Greyblades
06-15-2016, 16:51
I like it. Two peoples have lived in one country for 400 years and have developed only "occasional friendship". Way to go! Considering that before we became one country we were constantly invading and massacring eachother for giggles, a long term tolerance and occasional friendship is outright loving in comparison. I was also being somewhat facetious, before the scottish independance referendum we havent had a major falling out since the jacobites in the 1700's and that was more a Scottish civil war which the English took the side of the Protestant Lowlanders against the Catholic Highlanders
Who was beating up the French? Certainly not the Scots - they have their Auld Alliance to revere, so relations between England and Scotland were not friendly at times of English-French wars, notably the Hundred Years War. Unless by "high relations" you mean hostilities.
...dude, go look up how many times we have fought the french (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations#Union_of_England_and_Scotland), we've done it a lot, even after the 1707 act of union. Scratch that, especially after the 1707 act of union.
The Auld alliance ended in the 1500's.
An arbitrary statement. To my mind, the UK is the most special among the EU states and Cameron managed to negotiate even more concessions from the EU.
That would be if you consider the EU as a pact intended to create a federal government, when we joined it was with the understanding it was a free trade agreement and nothing more and with that context it becomes clear that we have been imposed upon incessantly.
Furunculus
06-15-2016, 19:29
Leave.
It's a constitutional thing.
I consider 'us' to be the people of the UK, and so i am willing to submit to common governance derived from the will of those people.
Economics isn't really a consideration, yes there will be a short term hit, but a low regulation low tax britain will grow faster long term.
Immigration isn't really an issue, to the limited degree that i care it is because we actively discriminate against commonwealth countries.
What i care about is:
Fiscal policy - low and simple tax.
Regulation - low and straightforward.
Foreign policy - we decide when to spill blood and treasure
Law and justice - the supremacy of parliament, and a supreme court that acts only to make sure parliament acts within its own laws
The EU is institutionally incapable of decisive action, it is unfit for purpose, and even if it was i'm unsure i'd like what decisive action they would take:
More complex tax
More byzantine regulation
Less interventionist FP, and less interest in Defence
Less emphasis on Common Law and more on statute adjudicated by the ECJ
Elmetiacos
06-15-2016, 19:52
Remainiacs, the gift that just keeps on giving.
After the 'emergency' budget was trashed this morning we have 'St' Bob Geldof sticking two fingers up to working class fishermen worried about their jobs and calls 'em wankers.
Keep it up lads. A multi-millionaire shitting on the little people.
Quoting from Chairman Farrage's Little Red Book... we all know what a class warrior Farrage is don't we, and how much he's always hated the millionaires and stood up for his fellow workers, just like the rest of that bastion of true Socialism, UKIP. The Brexiteers would be taking Orwellian doublethink to new heights - except of course, that we know they don't mean half of it. Sir Bob pointed out that despite being on the EU Fisheries Committee, Farrage attended one out of 43 of its meetings.
Furunculus
06-15-2016, 20:04
Quoting from Chairman Farrage's Little Red Book... we all know what a class warrior Farrage is don't we, and how much he's always hated the millionaires and stood up for his fellow workers, just like the rest of that bastion of true Socialism, UKIP. The Brexiteers would be taking Orwellian doublethink to new heights - except of course, that we know they don't mean half of it. Sir Bob pointed out that despite being on the EU Fisheries Committee, Farrage attended one out of 43 of its meetings.
not all of us brexiteers are ukip people, or, think very highly of nigel's tactics. ;)
InsaneApache
06-15-2016, 20:21
Socialists are mentally ill.
Kralizec
06-15-2016, 21:44
Wasn't the UK the chief lobbier for the expansion of the EU to include Turkey? AFAIK we were the chief driver to include eastern Europe.
Yes, that is correct. France, the Netherlands and several other countries postponed the free movement of those "new EU workers" for several years, which was allowed at the time under EU law. Britain voluntarily decided against these measures and instantly became the favourite destination.
Since that happened during Tony Blair's run as Prime Minister and seeing as how he is widely disliked nowadays, this is of course no obstacle for Brexiteers to blame Brussels for everything.
Some people also need to educate themselves on the difference between a Visum and the ability to migrate somewhere...and the fact that for the UK it doesn't matter one toss to whom the EU offers a visum, because it's only valid for the Schengen area.
Pannonian
06-15-2016, 22:26
Yes, that is correct. France, the Netherlands and several other countries postponed the free movement of those "new EU workers" for several years, which was allowed at the time under EU law. Britain voluntarily decided against these measures and instantly became the favourite destination.
Since that happened during Tony Blair's run as Prime Minister and seeing as how he is widely disliked nowadays, this is of course no obstacle for Brexiteers to blame Brussels for everything.
Some people also need to educate themselves on the difference between a Visum and the ability to migrate somewhere...and the fact that for the UK it doesn't matter one toss to whom the EU offers a visum, because it's only valid for the Schengen area.
That's what I thought, that the we'd opted out of the free movement rule, that any such free movement was decided by the Downing Street government rather than by Brussels. But as Greyblades explained in an earlier post, his intention is to stick it to all politicians by means of Brexit, so it doesn't matter whether something Brexiters dislike is decided by Brussels or Downing Street; everything that is bad is blamed on membership of the EU.
Socialists are mentally ill.
It's just depressing to see you write such unfounded, offensive blanket statements... :no:
Socialists are mentally ill.
Good work mate, good work.
Socialists are mentally ill.
I recommend reading the following website, because such a comment is disappointing.
http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/mental-health-and-stigma
Especially for someone who identifies their issues and heritage by the moniker: InsaneApache.
a completely inoffensive name
06-16-2016, 05:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHPot8k4h0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfef9oKDz80
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 07:02
The retort to scientists worrying over budget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW0LEtW_6sI
Gilrandir
06-16-2016, 07:09
...dude, go look up how many times we have fought the french (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations#Union_of_England_and_Scotland), we've done it a lot, even after the 1707 act of union. Scratch that, especially after the 1707 act of union.
The Auld alliance ended in the 1500's.
Dude, I'm aware of at least some of those wars. But you said that the Scots had a special cordiality towards the English when Britain went to war with the French. That was the statement that I doubted. It was certainly wrong in respect of pre-1707 wars. And I wonder what was the Scots participation in post-1707 wars and what was the popular feeling in Scotland when the British crown started a war with their long-time (although not current) allies. I'm sure it was far from unanimous in support of the English.
That would be if you consider the EU as a pact intended to create a federal government, when we joined it was with the understanding it was a free trade agreement and nothing more and with that context it becomes clear that we have been imposed upon incessantly.
Unions may evolve. The rules of evolution are to be discussed along the way. You should have put your foot down when it was being introduced. And you have lived with those changes for quite a time without any apparent (to an outsider) catastrophe. Now when Cameron has wheedled out significant preferences, I see no reason for raising hue and cry.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 07:19
Significant preferences that may as well be piss in the wind, the trust to give those promises meaning is long gone both with brussels. The EU is constantly pushing for more integration and has a disregard for the decisions of the member states as shown with the first Irish referendum on the lisbon treaty. With a combined attitude of "this time they'll do it" in the EU and a general trend among our politicians to not consult the electorate when signing the country to integratory agreements, we cannot trust that the promises will be upheld by either side for very long.
Yes, that is correct. France, the Netherlands and several other countries postponed the free movement of those "new EU workers" for several years, which was allowed at the time under EU law. Britain voluntarily decided against these measures and instantly became the favourite destination.
Since that happened during Tony Blair's run as Prime Minister and seeing as how he is widely disliked nowadays, this is of course no obstacle for Brexiteers to blame Brussels for everything.
Some people also need to educate themselves on the difference between a Visum and the ability to migrate somewhere...and the fact that for the UK it doesn't matter one toss to whom the EU offers a visum, because it's only valid for the Schengen area.
Not being part of the schingen area means we can still check people's passports when they try to enter the country. It does not change the fact that being part of the Eu means we cannot refuse EU citizens from immigrating here.
Some people need to educate themselves on the difference beteen border controls and immigration controls and also need to an attitude adjustment.
That's what I thought, that the we'd opted out of the free movement rule, that any such free movement was decided by the Downing Street government rather than by Brussels. But as Greyblades explained in an earlier post, his intention is to stick it to all politicians by means of Brexit, so it doesn't matter whether something Brexiters dislike is decided by Brussels or Downing Street; everything that is bad is blamed on membership of the EU.
I am sure it is comforting to reassure yourself that your side is sane and their side isnt but it is quite ugly to witness..
I do not like the EU, I do not like politicians who consider it more important than thier own country's well being and self determination, I consider makng those politicians panic a bonus but it most certainly is not my main goal. An anticipation of well deserved schadenfreude does not automatically make me an ill informed idiot blaming the EU for all my problems at the behest of another politician and your assumption is frankly depressing to witness in a fellow countryman.
I have made it clear multiple times I blame our problems on our own politicians as well as the EU so it is somewhat idiotic for you to claim otherwise. Thier time will come in 2020, 2025, 2030 and on and on but the EU can only be dealt with here and now.
Gilrandir
06-16-2016, 09:31
a general trend among our politicians to not consult the electorate when signing the country to integratory agreements
When you vote for some politicians you impart them with the authority to decide the course of the country. They don't have to ask you for permission on any issue which is within their responsibility. If you don't like decisions they adopt, vote them out next time.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 09:42
We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.
We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.
Gilrandir
06-16-2016, 10:44
We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.
We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.
According to recent polls the "we" vs the "them" is about 52% vs 48%. So I wouldn't be so bold as to extend your opinion to the whole nation (especially Scotland). As someone here put it (referring to Ukrainians, though) the British are a deeply divided nation.
As for removing the option, it is always the best decision. Let's remove football, and we will see no fan clashes any more. Let's remove gays, and we will witness no gaybar shootings any more. Let's remove Muslims and we will suffer no terror acts any more. Removing a cause always works.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 10:59
Those suggestions would work, they are last resorts in the situation where all other alternatives have and will fail, and continued persistance is untennable which is what we are in with the EU.
You have one poll saying close remain, I have one saying certain leave (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-lead-ipsos-mori-who-will-win-leave-campaign-remain-european-union-a7084951.html).
Pannonian
06-16-2016, 11:33
We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.
We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.
That's the rationale for why any intention to leave must mean taking action now. Ask why we should leave though, and the reasons make less sense.
Hence the fears about being flooded with immigrants because the EU imposes them on us. Except that the EU has no power to do any such thing as we're not in the Schengen zone, and any wave of immigrants is the decision of Downing Street, not Brussels. Or the fear that Turkey's accession will mean a wave of unsuitable EU members entering the UK. Except, as Furunculus points out in the Turkey thread, Turkey wasn't accepted back in the days before Erdogan's lunacy and IS, and indeed he blames the EU for not including Turkey as IHHO they should. Perhaps the two of you should have a chat to straighten things out, as one of you blames the EU for possibly accepting Turkey in the future as a reason for Brexit, while the other blames the EU for not accepting Turkey as a reason for Brexit.
Never mind about the mutually contradictory reasoning, the common theme is blaming the EU and thus necessitating Brexit. Once the UK is outside the EU, the EU will no longer be able to force the Schengen rules on the UK, which the UK isn't subject to anyway. Nor will it be able to introduce a wave of Turks into EU countries. Even though it's decided not to back when Turkey was rather more acceptable than now. I wonder when arguments about the euro will crop up, which the UK isn't subject to either.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 12:01
Red herring: the schingen zone just stops a nation from having border checks. The right to live and work in the UK by EU citizens was laid out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 (i assume act).
Yep most of our problems stem from our successive governments attempts to steer towards integration with the EU Brussels didnt exactly dissuade them from adopting thier faulty ideals to fit in with the club but the fault does indeed lie with the politicians charging towards the cliff like so many lemmings. We gave them many chances but the political class appears too invested in the EU to undo it on their own so we must remove thier end goal and shake things up.
They couldnt play nice so now they cant play at all. To hell with thier tantrums and threats.
Gilrandir
06-16-2016, 12:23
Those suggestions would work, they are last resorts in the situation where all other alternatives have and will fail, and continued persistance is untennable which is what we are in with the EU.
Untenable is too grim a word for current situation in the UK. And it is too conclusive to claim all other alternatives have failed. Presenting situation like the country is on the brink of the abyss and only a step back will save it is the rhetoric employed by both sides. Should the voting go either way I doubt if anything serious will ensue. Unless the Scots will start a to-do again in case a leave vote prevails. Which is serious.
You have one poll saying close remain, I have one saying certain leave (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-lead-ipsos-mori-who-will-win-leave-campaign-remain-european-union-a7084951.html).
Did you read the article carefully? It says:
The Ipsos MORI poll for the Evening Standard newspaper shows Leave with 53 per cent of the vote and Remain on 47 per cent cent.
Leave was up 10 per cent on the previous poll while Remain was down 10 per cent.
It means there is a growth of leavers, but the overall situation is still precarious. The 6% difference leaves the result still doubtful.
Red herring: the schingen zone just stops a nation from having border checks.
Like there were ever border checks even before Schengen was introduced. Moving between European countries you could sometimes fail to notice you have crossed into in a different state already.
Kralizec
06-16-2016, 12:55
Not being part of the schingen area means we can still check people's passports when they try to enter the country. It does not change the fact that being part of the Eu means we cannot refuse EU citizens from immigrating here.
Some people need to educate themselves on the difference beteen border controls and immigration controls and also need to an attitude adjustmen.
Seems I misread part of your statements, my mistake. A lot of people on the interwebs that talk about it in the context of Brexit discussions have no idea what it actually means. Turkey isn't going to become a member state anytime soon. Even if Erdogan leaves tomorrow and Turkey becomes a paradise with rainbows and fluffy unicorns overnight, which is unlikely, it could still easily take 6-8 years before their entry for the plain reason that it's a lengthy process.
As for the current wave of asylum seekers that has reached the EU...even if the majority of those people get residence permits, they will not have unqualified freedom of movement in the EU since they are not yet EU citizens. That would take many more years, for instance in the Netherlands you have to be legally resident for 5 years before you can naturalize. And the idea that those migrants will hop over to the UK en masse a soon as they're able is just fantasy, plain and simple.
As for the current batch of workers that have already migrated to the UK:
1) all the data shows that EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they receive, and are actually more often employed than natives
2) I don't see that there's a problem at all...but even so, British politicians are to blame for the scale of the "problem", not the EU
3) it's hardly fair to demand that the EU gives up one of its core achievements (freedom of movement) to counter the consequenses of British failures in policy
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 13:17
Untenable is too grim a word for current situation in the UK. And it is too conclusive to claim all other alternatives have failed. Presenting situation like the country is on the brink of the abyss and only a step back will save it is the rhetoric employed by both sides. Should the voting go either way I doubt if anything serious will ensue. Unless the Scots will start a to-do again in case a leave vote prevails. Which is serious. Well untennable depends on if the EU army becomes a thing, or the lisbon treaty loses it's opt out option. A while ago I'd say we'd be safe as the conservatives dont like giving up power, then Boris rebelled and the chances of teh conservatives surviving in one piece approached zero. A Labour/SNP coalition would basically make that it certainty.
I think unsustainable is a better descriptor, there are only so many bailouts and charity drives before the economies of the EU becomes too sunken and socially there is only so many immigrants people will put up with taking in before they start rebelling, perhaps not violently but we're already seeing nations going against Brussels. The way I see it the economic bailouts and migrant waves are not going to stop unless the EU's leaders change direction, which all signs point to not likely, and the longer it goes on the union is going to slump and decay until it is finally abandoned by the member countries. Point being I think we'll be better off getting off now than waiting for it to collapse, and we've lost the option to leave if things go sour in the short term.
Did you read the article carefully? It says:
The Ipsos MORI poll for the Evening Standard newspaper shows Leave with 53 per cent of the vote and Remain on 47 per cent cent.
Leave was up 10 per cent on the previous poll while Remain was down 10 per cent.
It means there is a growth of leavers, but the overall situation is still precarious. The 6% difference leaves the result still doubtful.
Sorry, wrong independant link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html
The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for The Independent a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.
Even when the findings are not weighted for turnout, Leave is on 53 per cent (up three points since April) and Remain on 47 per cent (down three). The online poll, taken on Wednesday and Thursday, suggests the Out camp has achieved momentum at the critical time ahead of the 23 June referendum.
Differential turnout could prove crucial. ORB found that 78 per cent of Leave supporters say they will definitely vote – describing themselves as a “10” on a scale of 0-10, while only 66 per cent of Remain supporters say the same.
Like there were ever border checks even before Schengen was introduced. Moving between European countries you could sometimes fail to notice you have crossed into in a different state already.
Would have been a heck of a thing to get through the channel tunnel without noticing!
Point being they dont need the schingen agreement to move into british houses and take british jobs, they can do that with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations which keeps us from refusing them.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 13:39
Seems I misread part of your statements, my mistake. A lot of people on the interwebs that talk about it in the context of Brexit discussions have no idea what it actually means. Turkey isn't going to become a member state anytime soon. Even if Erdogan leaves tomorrow and Turkey becomes a paradise with rainbows and fluffy unicorns overnight, which is unlikely, it could still easily take 6-8 years before their entry for the plain reason that it's a lengthy process.
As for the current wave of asylum seekers that has reached the EU...even if the majority of those people get residence permits, they will not have unqualified freedom of movement in the EU since they are not yet EU citizens. That would take many more years, for instance in the Netherlands you have to be legally resident for 5 years before you can naturalize. And the idea that those migrants will hop over to the UK en masse a soon as they're able is just fantasy, plain and simple.As I said: "give it time".
As for the current batch of workers that have already migrated to the UK:
1) all the data shows that EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they receive, and are actually more often employed than natives
...yeah to the detriment of the natives, they're coming in faster than we can employ or house them and thier lower expectations in standard of pay and living is helping them outcompete the locals.
2) I don't see that there's a problem at all...but even so, British politicians are to blame for the scale of the "problem", not the EUThe scale of the problem is proporitionate to the number of immigrants, and right now we cant put a cap on them to keep it sane, and that happened because our politicians started repeating the EU mantra, and that happened because they're idiots and/or greedy.
3) it's hardly fair to demand that the EU gives up one of its core achievements (freedom of movement) to counter the consequenses of British failures in policyYes it is, we should leave.
It was a great achievment when you could maintain the borders controls with non members, when they started to fail the core achievment became a flaw.
We have the option to remove a Cameron 2.0 and undo what he does, we don't have that option with the EU comission, not in a peaceful manner anyway. And with the comission hanging around his neck Cameron 1.0 or anyone else in power is limited in what they are capable of changing to make things better, even if they want to.
EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.
Greyblades
06-16-2016, 14:20
And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.
Kralizec
06-16-2016, 14:44
EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.
That's not true, AFAIK. Commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of all the member states. A state cannnot unilaterally withdraw "their" commissioner once he or she is in office. Allthough in practice, if he/she has lost favor it would generally be easy to persuade the president of the Commission to sack him or her.
Gilrandir
06-16-2016, 14:48
Sorry, wrong independant link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html
You are digging yourself into a deeper hole with these pollls. This one was published ON JUNE 10, the previous one - TODAY. So you see that the number of the leavers has actually decreased - on June 10 it was 55% vs 45%, now it is 53% vs 47%. Anyway, it is too close to predict anything.
There was the Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof boat battle on the thames too.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nigel-farage-and-bob-geldof-in-river-battle-on-the-thames-over-brexit-a3272161.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/hi-america-british-politics-went-completely-mad-today?utm_term=.omm1yWdwv#.ii31Qrq3m
And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.
You think you're as strong as 27 other EU people/countries? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
edit: Terrible assassination, not exactly a way to defend democracy. :no:
I claim victory for Britain.
Do you have a nuke?
No nuke no victory, you cant have one. That's the rules that I just made up, and I'm backing it up with this bomb, that was lent from the National Nuclear Security Administration.
I love Eddie Izzard.
The only one of you who could actually fire back at the same scale as us at this moment of time are the French so I stick to my assessment of us having strength equivilent of 1 out of 2.
Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Nuclear_weapons_sharing
You forget three things:
1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.
2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...
3) Poland has a missile shield.
Kralizec
06-17-2016, 14:34
Rest in Peace, Jo Cox.
And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.
A few problems with that:
- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.
- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population
- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.
As the vote comes closer, civil war breaks out on the Thames:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/hi-america-british-politics-went-completely-mad-today?utm_term=.rug09VnbB#.il8VDbgGk
As for the fishermen, has anyone ever considered that they may be overfishing the waters without EU regulations? Much like it happened in the Mediterranean? Didn't the Somalian pirates mostly come up due to EU countries overfishing in Somalian and other countries' waters?
If so, cry me a river...
Greyblades
06-17-2016, 16:27
Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...
On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.
Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Nuclear_weapons_sharing
You forget three things:
1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.
2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...
3) Poland has a missile shield.
Wiki link:
However, since all U.S. nuclear weapons are protected with Permissive Action Links, the host states cannot arm the bombs without authorization codes from the U.S. Department of Defense
1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.
2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.
3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.
The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.
The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.
A few problems with that:
- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject. I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.
- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.
- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be. The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 13 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.
Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...
On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.
If the Spanish are doing that, then I'm right and regulations should be tighter. Mandatory GPs modules that turn the boat around once it leaves the designated fishing zone, for example. :whip:
Wiki link:
1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.
2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.
3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.
The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.
The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.
The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.
The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 14 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.
Well:
1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain?
2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?
Greyblades
06-17-2016, 17:49
1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain? The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.
2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?
I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.
My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.
We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.
France needs the EU, UK doesn't. First tanks now banks, thank you Germany, the childles mother is the best thing ever
The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.
How often does such legislation pass? I.e. where is the use of that if the chance that it actually passes is around 1% or so?
I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.
My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.
But that is only in one body of the EU and we seem unable to actually figure out how powerful it really is compared to the EU parliament. Of course you will now say it's the most important body of the EU and basically decides everything by itself, but I have my doubts about that, just like I do about the usual argument that the EU only works for the corporations. Because so do a lot of national governments and it doesn't even explain all the punishments and legislation the EU dished out against certain corporations. For example several tech fiants from the US are under constant scrutiny by the EU, discriminatory business practices by online shops are being reviewed, misleading advertisement on water and regarding other food was banned and so on. The idea to privatize all basic water supply seems terrible though, I'll agree with that. The point is that it's not nearly as one-sided as Brexiteers make it out to be. The EU is what the members make of it, much like a national government. In both cases you have to make concessions and fight corporate influence. :shrug:
We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.
We'll see about that once you have left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC5S3ag1q0
Greyblades
06-17-2016, 19:54
I need to be in a better mood to deal with that video beskar right now I almost mistook it for a repeat of that patrick stewart skit over the human rights court.
How often does such legislation pass? I.e. where is the use of that if the chance that it actually passes is around 1% or so?
How often does legislation get voted upon by MEP's that dont get approved by the Comission? Around 0% or so?
But that is only in one body of the EU and we seem unable to actually figure out how powerful it really is compared to the EU parliament. Of course you will now say it's the most important body of the EU and basically decides everything by itself, but I have my doubts about that, just like I do about the usual argument that the EU only works for the corporations. Because so do a lot of national governments and it doesn't even explain all the punishments and legislation the EU dished out against certain corporations. For example several tech fiants from the US are under constant scrutiny by the EU, discriminatory business practices by online shops are being reviewed, misleading advertisement on water and regarding other food was banned and so on. The idea to privatize all basic water supply seems terrible though, I'll agree with that. The point is that it's not nearly as one-sided as Brexiteers make it out to be. The EU is what the members make of it, much like a national government. In both cases you have to make concessions and fight corporate influence. :shrug: It's the most important because without it's consent nothing gets voted on; it is the only body that can present legislation for vote, the parliament can only say yes or no it cannot alter or rewrite anything the comission puts out.
It's performance thus far might not be as tyranical as some believe but it is much less representative of the people and is basically impossible for the people to hold it to account if it doesnt present what the people wants it to. Britain's House of Parliament despite it's faults is a better democratic body than it is.
We'll see about that once you have left. Finally lost hope Husar?
I hope the shock will be enough to reform it, I really do.
Furunculus
06-17-2016, 20:46
The long answer:
I give my consent that you may govern in my name, and assent to be bound by the actions you take in my name as if they were my own.
However, the authority to govern that you possess in consequence is never to be leased out to a third party, and I will not deem those actions as were they my own.
What it boils down to is who ‘us’ is.
Am I a European? Why yes, how could I not recognise, respect, and admire the nations that have in so many ways shaped what is the UK today. Do I not desire the peace and harmony among peoples that is bred by cooperation and collaboration between us? But of course!
Why do I not love the EU? Because I celebrate the differences, and believe that – post Mastricht – the peoples of Europe have become enslaved by conformity. Arguably, the eurozone periphery has become enslaved by poverty too, given the unwillingness of participating nations to surrender to the logical consequence of their shared currency; economic and political union.
It is a technocratic machine that has no understanding of the concept of Demos, and in attempting to assume the mantle of Kratos, is failing to be both representative of and accountable to the people[s] of Europe.
The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.
The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.
This cannot be achieved when the aims and expectations of the peoples of Europe are so divergent that every policy response is a protracted argument resulting in a lowest-common-denominator solution. It is a recipe for indecision, aimless triangulation, and unhappiness. It is the ultimate example of the principle-policy puzzle.
Back to first principles. What do I want?
The supremacy of Parliament, and a Supreme Court that acts only to make sure that Parliament acts in accordance with the laws that it makes.
I want a happy and content Europe, that allows the UK to focus its energy to the best of our ability on ensuring the rest of the world is likewise happy and content.
A low taxation/low regulation society, able to continue with our Negative Liberty bent, happily between the extremes of the continent and the US.
An interventionist Foreign Policy, with both the means and will to see it employed in the pursuit of our enlightened national interest.
We have the principle. How does this translate to a problem?
The interference of the EU and its supporting bodies is breeding discontent at home, and encroaching on our fundamental sovereignty.
In forcing the smaller nations of Europe to march in lock-step towards ever-closer-union it breeds discontent that dissipates our focus on the wider world.
Eurozone convergence with consensus managed by QMV will see our taxation and regulation ‘harmonised’ upwards, and our society more beholden to Positive Liberty.
The EU fails to understand that an interventionist Foreign Policy requires direction and purpose, the decision to spend blood and treasure cannot be ‘calibrated’.
We have the problem. What is the solution?
For the UK, a Europe that is interested in cooperation and collaboration, through trade and other means, via the intergovernmental method.
For the nations of Europe, to choose individually an identity that fits their aims and expectations, whether that results in more integration or less.
For us to continue with a society that is more individual than collective, a liberal democracy that celebrates eccentricity rather than merely tolerating it.
For Britain to avoid supranational constructs that bind both our capability and our will to intervene, and pursuing instead bilateralism and multilaterlism.
Hold on, you say. This does not require us to leave the EU, surely?
No, the UK could determine the application of the ECHR via subsidiarity and the margin for appreciation… if the EUropean zeitgeist rejected judicial activism.
No, Sweden and Poland could de-jure back out of euro-accession, and Denmark Schengen membership… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.
No, the UK could continue within the EU as a fundamentally individualist liberal democracy… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.
No, the nations of Europe could continue to cooperate and collaborate effectively through NATO… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.
But, none of these things happen. For the EU is a stasis-machine, trapped by its inability to represent the interests of its people[s], and so it must further remove itself from accountability to those same people[s]. It cannot move forward, and it cannot move backward, all it can it do is breed resentment in its compromise.
What is needed is rupture.
To paraphrase text more familiar to the discussion of climate change: “that the EU has been chaotic and quasi stable long before the euro and schengen crises arrived, and that the real argument is whether eurosceptic input is disruptive enough to re-position Europe into a new and wholly desirable quasi-stable state.”
What is needed is an EU that does not force non-eurozone nations to constantly guard against encroachments on their fundamental sovereignty, thus freeing the eurozone to integrate to whatever degree necessary to provide stable and legitimate governance. What is needed is an EU that does not force new and existing member states to march up in lock-step with every integrationist measure, regardless of whether they would willingly choose it or otherwise. Achieving this will move Europe beyond lowest-common-denominator solutions, to a place where selective collaboration through shared interest produces a stronger outcome.
A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate.
Do we have to leave to enable this rupture? No, perhaps it is enough that we vote to remain on a wafer thin margin, but, what cannot happen is a decisive 60/40 vote to remain. For the good of Europe.
For the avoidance of doubt, things that don’t matter:
Straight bananas. Symptom, not cause.
Strasbourg. Symptom, not cause.
Immigration. Insomuch as I care, it is only because HMG is forced to unfairly discriminate against Commonwealth countries.
EU budget. It’s chicken-feed in the grand scheme of things.
These matters are best determined by ‘us’ regardless of whether the ‘us’ is Britons, Poles, Swedes, or a new federal state comprising the regions of France, Germany, Belgium, etc..
Vote leave.
How often does legislation get voted upon by MEP's that dont get approved by the Comission? Around 0% or so?
What does it matter if the result is usually the same? Seems like nitpicking.
It's the most important because without it's consent nothing gets voted on; it is the only body that can present legislation for vote, the parliament can only say yes or no it cannot alter or rewrite anything the comission puts out.
It's performance thus far might not be as tyranical as some believe but it is much less representative of the people and is basically impossible for the people to hold it to account if it doesnt present what the people wants it to. Britain's House of Parliament despite it's faults is a better democratic body than it is.
Yes, but what your member of the Commission wants can be influenced by who you vote for nationally?
Is Britain such a special snowflake that noone else in the EU every agrees with it or where is the issue?
Doesn't Britain have quite a few exceptions regarding EU membership? How did that ever happen if all the other mean countries are constantly bullying poor little Britain?
Finally lost hope Husar?
I hope the shock will be enough to reform it, I really do.
You're assuming that I ever had the kind of hope you are referring to. Maybe Britain getting out will finally allow the EU to reform.
Gilrandir
06-18-2016, 13:58
if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.
Do yopu realize that those in Russia are old Soviet missiles? Russia would lose half of them at launching and half of the rest would fall in Russia never reaching the goal.
The long answer...
These matters are best determined by ‘us’ regardless of whether the ‘us’ is Britons, Poles, Swedes, or a new federal state comprising the regions of France, Germany, Belgium, etc..
Vote leave.
Short reply: What of 'us' the Scots? Vote leave and you will see....
Greyblades
06-18-2016, 13:59
Do you realize that those in Russia are old Soviet missiles? Russia would lose half of them at launching and half of the rest would fall in Russia never reaching the goal.
Touche.
Do yopu realize that those in Russia are old Soviet missiles? Russia would lose half of them at launching and half of the rest would fall in Russia never reaching the goal.
Touche.
I wouldn't be so sure:
USA: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/26/us-nuclear-arsenal-controlled-by-1970s-computers-8in-floppy-disks
Russia: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582907/Russia-ready-test-new-generation-nuclear-missiles-capable-punching-NATO-s-shield-blowing-area-size-FRANCE.html
I wouldn't be so sure:
You know the saying people love... "Don't fix what isn't broken".
Furunculus
06-18-2016, 16:11
Short reply: What of 'us' the Scots? Vote leave and you will see....
that's your call, THE Scot's knew this was coming when the scottish [independence] referendum was happening a few years back.
Gilrandir
06-18-2016, 16:59
that's your call, scot's new this was coming when the scottish [independence] referendum a few years back.
We will see. Still, I'd like to see polls on Brexit in Scotland.
I wouldn't be so sure:
Russia: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582907/Russia-ready-test-new-generation-nuclear-missiles-capable-punching-NATO-s-shield-blowing-area-size-FRANCE.html
The Kremlin's new intercontinental ballistic missile will be ready for field trials this summer, according to the Russian news network Zvezda, which is owned by Russia's ministry of defence.
You should find out something on reliability of Russian media, especially state-owned media, and especially Zvezda.
Just think of it: last nuclear explosion test in Russia was taken in 1989, when it was still the USSR. Since then the warheads kept from those times have been rusting on their launchpads.
You should find out something on reliability of Russian media, especially state-owned media, and especially Zvezda.
Just think of it: last nuclear explosion test in Russia was taken in 1989, when it was still the USSR. Since then the warheads kept from those times have been rusting on their launchpads.
I knew you'd say that, but the development of such missiles is probably not a secret.
As for the dates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
Underground tests in the United States continued until 1992 (its last nuclear test), the Soviet Union until 1990, the United Kingdom until 1991, and both China and France until 1996. In signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996, these states have pledged to discontinue all nuclear testing. However, as of December 2013, the treaty has not yet entered into force because of failure to be signed/ratified by eight specific countries. Non-signatories India and Pakistan last tested nuclear weapons in 1998.
I don't think the date of the last test tells us a lot though, especially not about the missiles used to deliver the warheads.
And you conveniently ignored that US warheads are also largely rotting in some bunkers.
While one could argue the US are rebuilding and modernizing their nukes: https://next.ft.com/content/14bcff98-f753-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db
This article makes Russia look more ready to use it: http://time.com/4280169/russia-nuclear-security-summit/
Also this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35845232
Oh yeah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g
Gilrandir
06-19-2016, 06:30
I knew you'd say that, but the development of such missiles is probably not a secret.
Look at this and count how many fakes out of those were published by Zvezda:
http://www.russialies.com/russias-top-200-lies-international-edition/
It is likely to spin a story out of nothing.
I don't think the date of the last test tells us a lot though, especially not about the missiles used to deliver the warheads.
And you conveniently ignored that US warheads are also largely rotting in some bunkers.
I didn't ignore it, I just spoke of things I know. Within the last two years Russia had a string of accidents with their "flying objects", mostly military and mostly planes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-military-aircraft-are-crashing-from-overuse-2015-7
but some with missiles:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-russian-cruise-missiles-crash-in-iran-a6686856.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html
So I know that Russian strategic forces are not likely to deliver, so to say.
I didn't hear of accidents with their American counterparts, so I say only what I know.
Also this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35845232
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Do I have to remind you of drinking traditions in Russia? (Husar: I knew you would say it).
Pannonian
06-19-2016, 11:19
Only one idiot actually showed disrespect on this board and he was a 5 post blunder that dissapeared after getting rejected, we arent at the level you say we are quite yet.
Someone else also called the other political side "scum".
Greyblades
06-19-2016, 12:54
Yes in response to others disrespecting the dead for political points. Kinda appropriate use of the word really.
Furunculus
06-19-2016, 13:41
We will see. Still, I'd like to see polls on Brexit in Scotland.
http://news.sky.com/story/1714132/could-brexit-lead-to-new-scottish-referendum
"France needs the EU" Really?
Pannonian
06-19-2016, 16:37
Yes in response to others disrespecting the dead for political points. Kinda appropriate use of the word really.
Political points like finding far right links in the killer's background? I've seen rightists accusing the liberal left of avoiding uncomfortable facts, so should we avoid these facts just because the right is uncomfortable with him sharing their platform?
keep your cool's man, left and right don't exist
edyzmedieval
06-20-2016, 00:52
3 days to go, and as far as exit polls go, the Leave camp is ahead in the polls.
Guardian: Brexit is the only way the working class can change anything
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/brexit-working-class-sick-racist-eu-referendum
Social Party: Why socialists should leave the EU
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/22495
Message from the Dutch about their recent referendum:
DEAR BRITS,
Allow us a minute of your time to tell you an anecdote about democracy in the European Union.
Last April, the Netherlands held a national referendum on the EU Association Treaty with Ukraine. We, the organisers, wanted to have a more direct say in European Union developments, because we are worried about the ongoing and highly undemocratic expansionism of the EU. No government in Europe should be allowed to make far-reaching decisions without a majority consent.
So we set out to do something about it, and thanks to a successful Internet campaign and nearly half a million signatures, we forced our government to hold a referendum.
On April 6, a convincing 61 percent of the Dutch voters said “No” to the undesirable Association Treaty. So was that the end of that? Was democracy saved from the talons of the EU technocrats?
..And then we were ignored
Unfortunately, no. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, forced by his betters in Brussels, decided to completely ignore the outcome of the referendum. The Dutch voter was shunned by their national leaders, and, once again, democratic voices were muffled by the unelected officials of the European Union.
As the organizers of the Dutch referendum, we are not here to meddle in your national business. Dear Lord no — We’re not Brussels. But we do feel a need to tell you our story. Because democracy matters. And in the European Union – the people’s voices are silenced and shunned.
Read and share our story. Decide for yourself how highly you value the sovereignty of your national democracy. And cast your vote accordingly on June 23rd.
With love,
Your democratic friends from the Netherlands
We also voted no to a fargoing europian constitution, they just call it something else and do it anyway. The pvv of Wilders is the only party that wants referenda to be binding, and also want out, biggest party in the polls. The bewildering argument of ignoring the outcome is that people who didn't vote should also be heard, wut. Really ugly all this, it has been sabotaged from the start, reducing places to vote, press ignoring it untill they couldn't anymore. Moral victory is ours but we gained nothing. People who argue that a lot of people voted no just because they can and did that at the expense of the Ukrainians have a point I won't deny that, but there are very good reasons why most voted against it.
Gilrandir
06-20-2016, 08:34
http://news.sky.com/story/1714132/could-brexit-lead-to-new-scottish-referendum
A nice map, but still no overall figures.
The song to sum up British feelings about the EU, to the tune of the EU anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy)
https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=13m55s
F**k you, European Union!
Tally-ho, you f**king pr***s!
We are the United Kingdom!
You can eat our spotted dicks!
That being said,
We're not going to leave you,
Turns out we need you!
Nonetheless,
F**k you, European Union!
It feels good to tell you this!
Poland is depressing,
And there's vampires in Romania.
Spain is far too hot
And where the f**k is Lithuania?
To be fair, Slovenia's lovely,
(We're only kidding, it sucks too!)
But we must admit,
Without these countries
We'd be really screwed!
F**k the European Union,
Even though we must admit,
We would all be bats**t crazy,
If we vote for leaving it!
Greyblades
06-20-2016, 17:12
If one man's action is going to change your mind, maybe I can change it back with this one's?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j-Gb8Pk2Pk
Pannonian
06-20-2016, 17:17
If one man's action is going to change your mind, maybe I can change it back with this one's?
Does this mean that the killer was indeed doing this in connection with the referendum campaign, rather than this being some kind of baseless anti-leave allegation?
Greyblades
06-20-2016, 17:58
Who knows, I'm just trying to lure back an Old-labour fan who appeared to be starting to sympathise with brexit before the assassination.
yay, 48% want nexit, 45% don't. Italy hates the EU even more, Germans aren't very enthousiastic either to my surprise 36% want out.
InsaneApache
06-21-2016, 13:09
How has it been discredited?
We keep getting more and more poor people and social issues, we almost have to shoot even poorer people to keep them from trying to come here while others try to blow us up because they hate us, when will Capitalism solve that?
Your own country wants out of the EU because the EU is too capitalist and doesn't care about the fishermen, no?
Let's see.
USSR.
Cambodia.
North Korea.
Argentina.
Venezuela.
Etc.
Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?
Oh and capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty these last thirty years then any other system.
CupHead5998
06-21-2016, 13:12
Personally as an American i HOPE the brits leave the EU, it's a rotten structure that needs to topple it's also getting dangerously authoritarian with the EU army proposal that and most British laws are not made by Brits which in fairness is an annoying and utterly idiotic idea how would a guy in Brussels know what the average Brit wants? he doesn't! but its up to the British people. if i could i'd vote leave, the guy on youtube "Sargon of Akkad" made a few good videos on it actually that i won't link here. Now i won't reveal who in the American election i'm putting my vote in for since he's a tad bit controversial! InsaneApache
Anybody who would argue for a communist government does not understand that communist systems always fall to dictatorship they have before and they always will See "Holodomor" where soviets committed a Ukrainian genocide. I'm rather poor (always have been) i am a working class man and i notice always that the socialists/communists are usually richer than me and more uptight despite "Caring for the working man" Now this isn't true EVERYWHERE but it's certainly evident to me and just seems like a dangerous form of virtue signalling that will lead to death and dictatorship.
Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?
Norway?
Depends on what you call 'socialist' too. The faux-communist countries you listed are not socialist, but there are great many examples of democratic socialism in Europe such as Scandinavian countries and even post war Britain.
Also there is an issue on what you call 'capitalist' too. Since there is the corrupt hypercapitalism in places like the USA where corporates buy the government.
CupHead5998
06-21-2016, 13:49
Beskar
Adolf Hitler was a nationalist SOCIALIST.
Jus saying he was pretty successful.
Now that's not to say that he was to bad
you know what i'm not gonna continue with this post it'll get me banned
probably.
Adolf Hitler was a nationalist SOCIALIST.
Jus saying he was pretty successful.
Now that's not to say that he was to bad
you know what i'm not gonna continue with this post it'll get me banned
probably.
I have to be honest, only ignorance on the subject would be responsible for a retort like that. I will show you something.
Do you know North Korea full title is "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" - now is North Korea democratic? No it isn't. Is North Korea a republic? No, they have a monarchy. The United States, a nation built on democracy and it is a republic, are they the same as North Korea because North Korea's name? That is what you're currently arguing.
Hitler hated socialism. He was foremost a Nationalist. When he came into power, first things he did was ban the socialists from government, and sent them off to prison camps, and later exterminated them. He saw himself as an antithesis to socialism and capitalism, the "third way", and created a totalitarian regime. The reason for the name was because after WW1, there are effectively two camps, the socialists and the nationalists. His party was an 'experiment' in trying to unite two opposing factions under his banner.
On a side note: "i won't give away who I am voting for in presidental election as he is quite controversial" .. there is only 1 male candidate, Donald Trump.
Greyblades
06-21-2016, 14:11
And from her constituents' testimonies, Cox believed in that kind of socialism too.
Makes it all the more tragic, people like her are going to among the sort of people we need in power after we leave to make it work.
Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?
Germany, Britain, Norway, Netherlands.
And since you mentioned Argentina, that one was ruined again by a capitalist. Are capitalists proud of kicking people who already lie on the ground?
I still think that a capitalism that is heavily restricted by socialism is probably best until we find and try a system that works better than both, but I guess the world just has to be black and white...
Oh and capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty these last thirty years then any other system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG
That was in the 50s and 60s, since then, not so much.
CupHead5998
06-21-2016, 14:19
I have to be honest, only ignorance on the subject would be responsible for a retort like that. I will show you something.
Do you know North Korea full title is "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" - now is North Korea democratic? No it isn't. Is North Korea a republic? No, they have a monarchy. The United States, a nation built on democracy and it is a republic, are they the same as North Korea because North Korea's name? That is what you're currently arguing.
Hitler hated socialism. He was foremost a Nationalist. When he came into power, first things he did was ban the socialists from government, and sent them off to prison camps, and later exterminated them. He saw himself as an antithesis to socialism and capitalism, the "third way", and created a totalitarian regime. The reason for the name was because after WW1, there are effectively two camps, the socialists and the nationalists. His party was an 'experiment' in trying to unite two opposing factions under his banner.
On a side note: "i won't give away who I am voting for in presidental election as he is quite controversial" .. there is only 1 male candidate, Donald Trump.
Hmph Bested me there. However there was a faction running with Hitler that did interpret Socialist part of the message as literal Marxist socialism though, i think his name was Otto if i can recall correctly.
also Hey you guessed right.
didn't mean to come off angry if that's what my post relayed.
InsaneApache
06-21-2016, 14:25
Also there is an issue on what you call 'capitalist' too. Since there is the corrupt hypercapitalism in places like the USA where corporates buy the government.
There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.
And since you mentioned Argentina, that one was ruined again by a capitalist
Argentina was at the beginning of the 20th century the equal of the USA in GDP. A few decades of socialist policies soon put an end to that caper.
Are capitalists proud of kicking people who already lie on the ground?
Yes I kick puppys too. :creep:
There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.
You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?
Argentina was at the beginning of the 20th century the equal of the USA in GDP. A few decades of socialist policies soon put an end to that caper.
And then a capitalist came along and socialized his losses to bring the country to its knees once more. Maybe there is a socialist even in the biggest capitalists, just wait until they end up on a losing streak in the big lottery of capitalism and/or see an opportunity to socialize their losses. It's easy to say socialism failed due to the way humans are, but then I'd argue that capitalism devolves into corporatism all the time for the same reasons.
Yes I kick puppys too. :creep:
*puppies
There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.
You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?
I think this is exactly the point. We could point at extreme examples, then tar everyone with the same brush.
Does InsaneApache as a capitalist want to sell off his mother? Does Husar who believes that people should have a fair wage, want to send people off to gulags? The answer to both of these are no (I hope) and would be silly to suggest otherwise.
Here's the video you've all been waiting for to hate it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8
CupHead5998
06-21-2016, 15:31
John oliver is a bushist through and through,
and he thinks he can tell Americans what we "need" despite being a Brit who knows nothing of life here other than hollywood.
Now when i say bushist i mean somebody like a clinton or a Jeb bush Trumpism is the newest form of politics, well in america anyway and it seems to have destroyed bernism or well bushism beat bernism. eithey way i already saw that LWT on 8ch
Pannonian
06-21-2016, 15:43
You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?
And then a capitalist came along and socialized his losses to bring the country to its knees once more. Maybe there is a socialist even in the biggest capitalists, just wait until they end up on a losing streak in the big lottery of capitalism and/or see an opportunity to socialize their losses. It's easy to say socialism failed due to the way humans are, but then I'd argue that capitalism devolves into corporatism all the time for the same reasons.
*puppies
The socialist theorist that I admire most is George Orwell. That's someone who formed his ideas by attempting to live the lives of the oppressed, analysing their position in relation to those who are in power, and coming up with ideas to improve lives. And not ducking any difficult questions that arise from factional politics. His socialism is non-factional, but grimy with sweat.
Gilrandir
06-21-2016, 16:17
Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?
Germany, Britain, Norway, Netherlands.
Norway?
All wrong. The correct answer is China.
Wow you're really into that non existent oppression malarkey aren't you, I don't think you can conjure up the homeless of France as oppressed, Have you even read down and out in Paris and London not once did he mention the homeless as oppressed, he even mentions you become homeless due to the choices you make in life. George Orwell wasn't socialist theoreist at all he even despised socialism as a dogma a route to communism or totalitarianism, went into the Spanish Civil War as an Communist/Socialist and came home with a lot of anarchist ideals the books he wrote such as Animal Farm and 1984 will testify to that.
However George Orwell was undogmatic, and dissaproved of dogmatism in socialism.
Gilrandir
06-21-2016, 16:37
Is anyone going to manually enforce the suspension on Lizardo, or is he going to continue smearing Jo Cox on here?
Ask Putin to send some fans.
CupHead5998
06-21-2016, 18:06
Thread bugged out for me unless all of page 9 is gone?
InsaneApache
06-21-2016, 18:12
Does InsaneApache as a capitalist want to sell off his mother?
I tried that but there were no takers. Someone suggested giving her a good ironing might help.
Thread bugged out for me unless all of page 9 is gone?
It got moved by Beskar to a new thread called Jo Cox.
Anjem Choudary is for Remain and you'd never guess why, the ECHR, got to admire the man's honesty.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/exclusive-anjem-choudary-says-uk-worse-off-outside-eu-muslim-perspective/
Anjem Choudary is for Remain and you'd never guess why, the ECHR, got to admire the man's honesty.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/exclusive-anjem-choudary-says-uk-worse-off-outside-eu-muslim-perspective/
I like that you trust extremists so much and base your opinion on theirs.
A great video which draws parallels between the Roman Empire and the pelopennisian war and the ever encroaching EU army to make the case for leaving the EU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRPmXbksPgQ
The beginnings of the EU army are here Germany assumes command of 4 Dutch Battalions aswell the EU special Taskforce which Britain Dedicates a small contigent to already. BF2 anyone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQYtH2JyXww)
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
CrossLOPER
06-21-2016, 22:31
ignorance on the subject
I have to be honest, that is an extremely tame way of putting it.
I have to be honest, that is an extremely tame way of putting it.
It is however, unlike you stated by altering the quote, not displaying ignorance on the subject.
Unlike many, who either flock to 'remain' or 'leave', then demonize the otherside, I have criticized both. I find the decision to be difficult due to conflicting personal views. I have also read a lot on the subject. So trying to dismiss one of the least ignorant people on the subject as "ignorant" only reflects poorly on yourself.
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
A United States of Europe or as I like to put it the EUSSR, as an idea Is not inherently a 'bad thing' but to implement this concept would take fairly benign and sinister actions, undermining of each European Countries culture language and a lot of people would not just simply accept this it would therefore take genocide, mass killings, re-education, weakening of societal values, oppression, mass immigration etc.
All details can be found in the Kalergi Plan.
InsaneApache
06-21-2016, 23:15
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
That's the problem.
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
This would be easier to agree with if a lot of people were better educated, but yeah...
You can currently see in Britain what a democratic process can do...
#everythingwasbetterundertheKaiser
Greyblades
06-22-2016, 00:34
I hear you, #everythingwasbetterunderCromwell :P
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
Honestly I am not sure if it is even all that desireable, if it wasnt for the immigration issues and the prospect of membership including those too underdeveloped or culturally incompatible for stability in the EU, this level of european integration would be a pretty comfortable status quo for us. Only problem is, even if those two issues were solved, there's still the incessant drive for further unnecissary and even detrimental integration that we seem to be becoming incapable of keeping in check.
Concept of "United States of Europe" is not inherently a bad thing.
However, by-passing the democratic process to do it, is.
The hollow men. The EU in it's current state is doomed, nobody wants it except those that do. I love simplicity as complexity is too complicated for me, and it seems pretty straightforward to me that there should be a northen-EU. maybe including Germany if the AFD can send the Merkel back to the village of her childhood to raise cows and report it to the owner of the farm if the cow do something wrong, she is perfect for the job she knows how these things work, plenty experience.
It's tragic as some eurocrats are genuinly ideologic I won't doubt their good intention.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651460/Grieving-family-reveal-war-veteran-s-dying-wish-post-Leave-vote-fighting-country-end.html
edyzmedieval
06-22-2016, 19:10
Out of the Orgahs who are UK citizens, who's going to the vote tomorrow?
Pannonian
06-22-2016, 19:10
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651460/Grieving-family-reveal-war-veteran-s-dying-wish-post-Leave-vote-fighting-country-end.html
Here ya go Frag, someone using someone's death for political advantage. This is the same guy who smeared Jo Cox before her body was in the ground, contrary to Backroom custom, using an alt to do so.
Here ya go Frag, someone using someone's death for political advantage. This is the same guy who smeared Jo Cox before her body was in the ground, contrary to Backroom custom, using an alt to do so.
You chat doodoo, I'm not even going to explain why, because you know it yourself.
nobody wants it except those that do
Oh the wisdom of this one. :drama1:
Pannonian
06-22-2016, 21:10
Oh the wisdom of this one. :drama1:
Reminds me of that gem of Spinal Tap wisdom.
"The more it stays the same, the less it changes."
Pannonian
06-22-2016, 21:11
Out of the Orgahs who are UK citizens, who's going to the vote tomorrow?
I certainly will. The forecast is for heavy rain, but I'm going to cast my vote no matter what.
I already voted a couple of weeks ago. Which does make the whole thing about a 'run up' rather weird for me!
https://www.facebook.com/ben.g.miller/posts/10101656636534511
InsaneApache
06-23-2016, 01:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY3RznQSBfw#t=16
Greyblades
06-23-2016, 09:43
Have you found yourself regretting your decision at any time suring this beskar?
https://www.facebook.com/ben.g.miller/posts/10101656636534511
House of lords delayal time: 1 year max. Commission delayal time 5 years minimum.
InsaneApache
06-23-2016, 11:03
Angela Merkel arrives in Athens airport.
"Nationality?" asks the immigration officer.
"German," she replies.
"Occupation?" "No, just here for a few days."
:creep: :laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.