Backroom Errata

[rory_20_uk]

You need to be more precise about what you mean with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Panama_Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aradise_Papers

I see one member of the EU parliament in this and dozens of people from the UK. If we can extrapolate from that, the UK parliament has at least four times as many corrupt members than the EU parliament and that's with fewer members overall. How then, can you deduce that leaving the EU would be better for the fight against corruption than staying in?

Your argument makes no sense so far.

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

[Pannonian]

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

What have the internal workings of member states to do with the EU? Didn't you complain that the EU overrides national laws? If the politicians of member states decide to be corrupt within their countries, what do you expect the EU to do that doesn't override national laws?

Here's an example of corruption within an EU institution. Nigel Farage, MEP for SE England, notoriously rarely turns up to work, yet takes his MEP's salary and will take his pension in due course. What do you make of this?

[rory_20_uk]

What have the internal workings of member states to do with the EU? Didn't you complain that the EU overrides national laws? If the politicians of member states decide to be corrupt within their countries, what do you expect the EU to do that doesn't override national laws?

Here's an example of corruption within an EU institution. Nigel Farage, MEP for SE England, notoriously rarely turns up to work, yet takes his MEP's salary and will take his pension in due course. What do you make of this?

Do you see the irony of what you've written? Probably not...

If the countries do not follow laws, what they are doesn't matter. The UK generally follows its laws. The three countries I mentioned have a long history of corruption and do not enforce their own laws. The EU is finally developing a spine on issues such as Poland trying to remove many judges.

Another example is when unfit horse meat was used for human consumption. The EU laws said this was illegal. And it happened anyway. And with the pretence that every country enforces laws the same it happily passes over borders with little more than a nod.

Has Farage broken any of the rules for being a MEP? Are they allowed to take large amounts of money, a final salary pension, effectively private healthcare and do sod all? I doubt it. Hence this is another small reason why the EU as it stands is unfit for purpose. It should have remained similar to NATO where national assets were used rather than adding in extra layers of leeches whose only purpose is to enhance their own existence at the expense of both individual countries and the populace thereof.

[Pannonian]

Do you see the irony of what you've written? Probably not...

If the countries do not follow laws, what they are doesn't matter. The UK generally follows its laws. The three countries I mentioned have a long history of corruption and do not enforce their own laws. The EU is finally developing a spine on issues such as Poland trying to remove many judges.

Another example is when unfit horse meat was used for human consumption. The EU laws said this was illegal. And it happened anyway. And with the pretence that every country enforces laws the same it happily passes over borders with little more than a nod.

Has Farage broken any of the rules for being a MEP? Are they allowed to take large amounts of money, a final salary pension, effectively private healthcare and do sod all? I doubt it. Hence this is another small reason why the EU as it stands is unfit for purpose. It should have remained similar to NATO where national assets were used rather than adding in extra layers of leeches whose only purpose is to enhance their own existence at the expense of both individual countries and the populace thereof.

I'm not sure how the irony works against me here. I've never complained about international bodies enforcing international agreements, either as an individual or against said bodies. Where you see the horsemeat scandal as the fault of the EU, I see it as the fault of the officials who are supposed to be enforcing the regulations, and the relevant bodies corrected matters when this became known, as it should. Like you said, the UK, unlike much of eastern Europe, is generally law-abiding. Which is why the ECJ, the arbiter of disputes concerning EU agreements between member states, has ruled in favour of the UK the vast majority of the time. Which makes the ECJ the protector of UK rights, not the threat that you paint it to be. As a comparison, what do you make of the US lobbyists' applications to Trump for any future US-UK trade deal? All the stuff that Remainers warned about, the American lobbyists have now formally submitted to Trump. And the Japanese have withdrawn from negotiations with the UK, as they reckon they can bend us over further than they currently have. Just as the Remainers had warned, but were dismissed as Project Fear.

On your above complaint that the EU is not fit for purpose because there is an additional layer of leeches. What do you think of the additional 5,000 (minimum) officials that we need to find and pay for to deal with customs barriers that we currently don't have? You don't like the additional politicians, so you'd probably prefer inter-nation relations rather than a centralised Parliament. We also have that, in the form of EU commissioners, who are appointed by and represent the member states. Yet the EU commissioners were oft cited as an example of unelected bureaucrats who held the real power in the EU. So, of the two ways in which the EU's population is represented in the EU, the state-appointed commissioners are criticised by Brexiters as unelected bureaucrats that hold the real power, while the elected MEPs are criticised by Brexiters as an additional layer of leeches. The UK has 73 MEPs, not all of whom are corrupt like the arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage, whom you defend by arguing that he's not breaking any laws (even though I'd have thought that politicians should be subject to ethics as much as laws). You reckon that's a waste of money, and would get rid of them (even though Farage will still be taking his pension long after this), replacing them with thousands of officials who would otherwise not be needed. Which is more cost effective? 73 MEPs with associated officials? Or 5-10k customs officials? And the latter doesn't even include the cost of physical infrastructure, such as the port of Ramsgate that the government was banking on, but which is now deemed to be unuseable. I'd like to see the Brexiteers produce some accounts for all this, given that 350m/week for the NHS apparently paid such a big part in their side's win.

[Montmorency]

Related to plutocracy: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Alva...iketty2015.pdf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Bad luck economy, Eurolads.)

[Pannonian]

A Parliamentary inquiry has concluded that Facebook has corrupted the exercise of British democracy, and that electoral laws have to be rewritten from bottom up, and that all British elections (including the 2016 referendum) have likely been subject to foreign interference.

[Montmorency]

Buzz Aldrin says migrate to Mars to save humanity, but that doesn't make sense. If the premise is that Mars is a backup in case Earth becomes uninhabitable, then the reasoning is all muddled. Anything we could do on Mars to habitate it would be orders of magnitude more easily done on Earth, from subterranean dwelling to geoengineering. To say nothing of actually moving people.

I support colonization, but migration is putting the speculative fiction before the horse.


Also, it registered with me that this apocalyptic diary of a starving child in the siege of Leningrad

Zhenya died on December 28th at 12 noon, 1941

Grandma died on the 25th of January at 3 o'clock, 1942

Leka died March 17th, 1942, at 5 o'clock in the morning, 1942

Uncle Vasya died on April 13th at 2 o'clock in the morning, 1942

Uncle Lesha May 10th, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, 1942

Mama on May 13th at 7:30 in the morning, 1942

The Savichevs are dead

Everyone is dead

Only Tanya is left

-Tanya Savicheva

reads a lot like last records of the dwarves in Balin's tomb:

We cannot get out. We cannot get out. They have taken the bridge and Second Hall. Frár and Lóni and Náli fell there bravely while the rest retreated to Mazarbul. We still hold the chamber but hope is fading now. Óin’s party went five days ago but today only four returned. The pool is up to the wall at West-gate. The Watcher in the Water took Óin -- we cannot get out. The end comes soon. We hear drums, drums in the deep.

They are coming

As is often the case, real life beats the heck out of fiction.

[Husar]

First off, I was not saying that the UK was better.
Secondly, one second you're on about precision then you suddenly extrapolate a minuscule data set and conclude that the EU - with such countries as Hungry, Romania and Bulgaria - has less corruption. Might there be a reason that the leaders of these three countries don't need to offshore? I'm sure that Germany ranks as one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. However, they've combined most of their systems with those that are known to be extremely corrupt.

So... take the blinkers off once in a while.

Exactly, you were only talking about corruption in the EU. If I was supposed to guess from that that you think Britain is not better, why did you use the argument in support of Brexit? Or did you not? That's what I meant with more precision, I am left to guess what exactly you mean.

As for extrapolating and precision, I found exactly one single MEP on the list, you said "some of the EU politicians". That's plural, so you already extrapolated from one MEP to several politicians, then say I'm imprecise for doing the same. At least I provided a source for my extrapolation, you provided absolutely nothing and left me guessing what you actually mean and where you take that info from.

So yeah, it's your argument, you might have a point, you might not, from the sources I found, you're completely wrong. It's not even my job to provide sources for your argument...
As Pannonian said, the local politicians don't matter since you specifically mentioned that the EU itself wasn't serious about corruption. Local politicians that aren't in the EU and are supposedly overruled by the EU say nothing about the EU unless they're British and will not be in the EU anymore soon. My second list has one EU MP and four British MPs, the other list has several government officials and other important British people and I wouldn't find any EU officials, so how exactly is Brexit going to help with lowering corruption based on the Panama Papers?

[rory_20_uk]

Exactly, you were only talking about corruption in the EU. If I was supposed to guess from that that you think Britain is not better, why did you use the argument in support of Brexit? Or did you not? That's what I meant with more precision, I am left to guess what exactly you mean.

As for extrapolating and precision, I found exactly one single MEP on the list, you said "some of the EU politicians". That's plural, so you already extrapolated from one MEP to several politicians, then say I'm imprecise for doing the same. At least I provided a source for my extrapolation, you provided absolutely nothing and left me guessing what you actually mean and where you take that info from.

So yeah, it's your argument, you might have a point, you might not, from the sources I found, you're completely wrong. It's not even my job to provide sources for your argument...
As Pannonian said, the local politicians don't matter since you specifically mentioned that the EU itself wasn't serious about corruption. Local politicians that aren't in the EU and are supposedly overruled by the EU say nothing about the EU unless they're British and will not be in the EU anymore soon. My second list has one EU MP and four British MPs, the other list has several government officials and other important British people and I wouldn't find any EU officials, so how exactly is Brexit going to help with lowering corruption based on the Panama Papers?

One? Odd - here's 6: https://www.euractiv.com/section/eco...apers-scandal/
Some more: https://www.politico.eu/article/5-wa...david-cameron/

Oh, and several countries. https://www.dw.com/en/panama-papers-...ies/a-41033612

Given the UK is currently in the EU, how exactly am I to refer to things not in the EU? I appear to be in a tiny minority that isn't telling everyone how I can predict the future of what things will look like - better or worse.

To point out the obvious: Brexit will do nothing to improve corruption just as the EU has done little if anything to improve corruption - especially if every country in the EU and their conduct can be conveniently ignored - reminds me of New Zealand giving human rights... easily done since they have none in New Zealand at the time. The EU has passed some documents and they are toothless enough to ensure that they are easily avoided for everyone involved.