AlmightyWalrus wrote: Even assuming that it is partisan spite, would it make the complaint less true?
Considering that not even Angela Merkel agrees with you, no.
The president is correct. Despite criticism from other current and former officials about Ivanka Trump taking a seat at the world leaders' table on Saturday, Angela Merkel — the coolheaded leader of Germany since 2005 and viewed by some as the new “leader of the free world” — has emerged as an unlikely defender of the young Trump amid her G-20 controversy. Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, Merkel noted that, ultimately, it is up to a country to decide who steps in when its leader has to leave a meeting.
“The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel told reporters. “Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”
Oh come off it, you're basically trying to paint this as those of us who are willing to put up with a little pain to remove and weaken the poisonous ideology puported by the Tories as somehow morally reprehensible compared to someone who voted to tell the EU to piss off?
Nope.
I personally vehemently believe that the Tories are real threat to the country, every decision they have made has been for their own survival to the detriment of the country, and they continue to do so. They must be removed, and broken up in order to protect the country.
See, I don't have a problem with someone believing the Tories are bad for the country, and that they should be gotten rid of. Don't even mind the 'little bit of pain' stated above. What I do goggle at slightly is this sort of thing:-
Mad Doc wrote:I know some might consider me callous for this, and to be honest I'm amongst them, but we need to let The Tories blow up Brexit, big style.....The only issue is, this is going to hurt. It's the socio-political equivalent of having legs cut off to save the body - without anaesthetic. And it's the little people that are going to be hit the hardest.
But it's necessary.
Effectively saying that you want to this country to economically self-destruct? In order to do a bit of damage (and it will be a bit, the public forgets everything in a decade) to a single political faction? Sorry, no. I don't bite on the whole 'I think the whole country should get financially fethed in so many ways to get me a few anti-Tory headlines'. If I thought for one minute that leaving the EU would leave millions on the dole and a tenfold increase in home foreclosures, I'd never have voted the way I did.
Not to mention that in my mind, whether we stay in the EU or not was a generational issue of importance tenfold above which self obsessed spanker ends up living in Number 10 for the next handful of years. As said before, they're all going to screw us over in one way or another. Anyone who would happily put up with a repeat of the Wall Street Crash in order to 'teach' us that the Tory ideology is bad clearly has a worse ideology than the Tories.
It's not a case of teaching people a lesson, more that they don't believe that tory ideology is harmful to them. The way things are going, those working class tories are going to see exactly what it means to throw their support behind the conservatives when they're being pushed to the wall by Ukip. Just like with Brexit, no amount of warnings or evidence, debate or argument will convince them, only the evidence of their own eyes.
To me, leaving the EU is monstrously harmful and damaging to the country, and voting for that was reprehensible in my eyes, however, I'm not trying to put myself on a moral pedestal here, and you're onto a loser if you think you're going to convince anyone that your support for a policy is any better than anybody else's because of some self constructed moral standpoint.
I just want to make something very clear, however. I'm in no way relishing the damage to come, whatever the cause. Many ordinary people are going to suffer for these decisions, and no one should be happy about that. To quote from one of my favourite movies, "it's a huge **** sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite."
To me, leaving the EU is monstrously harmful and damaging to the country, and voting for that was reprehensible in my eyes, however, I'm not trying to put myself on a moral pedestal here, and you're onto a loser if you think you're going to convince anyone that your support for a policy is any better than anybody else's because of some self constructed moral standpoint.
You're not quite getting it. It's nothing to do with 'moral pedestals'. I would never knowingly and deliberately vote for any policy that I thought would inflict massive economic harm (and therefore untold misery) on the country and the people who live here. You and me may disagree on which policies may do that harm, and that's fine. The future is an intangible with no way of knowing. At the core of it, we both want what's best for the people of the country.
To actively will for mass economic damage though? In order to teach some people a lesson? That lesson, lest we forget, being that they should think the same way as you on politics?
No, I'm not of the opinion that's a thing to respect. I don't believe it's something I need to convince anyone of either. Anyone who thinks they have the right to cause that sort of misery to force people to think the same way as them is doing morality wrong.
EDIT:-I've thought about it a bit, and concluded that this probably isn't how Mad Doc meant his words to be taken. We're all on the internet, text is an imperfect form of communication, and political answers can be hastily typed. He tends to be reasonably standup chap even if we disagree on some political stuff, so it's probably the case. I'd actually be surprised on reflection, if he was suddenly advocating something as facist as I've been reading him as saying.
Accordingly, until he has a chance to clarify whether or not he actually is actively hoping for the country to suffer massive economic harm, just so the Tories can get one in the eye and more people have to think like him, I'll retract my previous comments.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And if it was Chelsea Clinton, filling in for her mother? Would you still feel the same way?
I doubt it. I think this is just petty partisan spite.
I think most people would have just as much of a problem - but it wouldn't have arisen because almost every other potential leader of a major Western nation would never crowbar their woefully unqualified kids into their administrations in the first place. The issue isn't even so much that it's his daughter, it's the purely nepotistic appointing of an unelected person with no appropriate experience of any kind, and their immediately serving at the highest level of diplomacy.
They've lead us down this path. Brexit is going to go wrong. We're all going to suffer.
The single silver lining is that the Tories can't now palm it off and claim 'it was all them mate, we'd have done better'.
The knock-on effect of that is the very possible shattering of any and all power media barons wield over our elected representatives.
I think this is it; no-one wants the UK to suffer, but since Brexit is a Tory clusterfeth from start to finish, there's hope that since it's going to be bad it'll be a fairly short-sharp pain, causing people to realise how nasty and incompetent the Tories are, and allowing the country to start fixing things sooner.
They were responsible for the referendum, the campaign, the negotiations, so we need to make sure they are also responsible for the fall out.
Any party offering assistance in negotiations will inevitably cop the blame, probably with Das Daily Heil calling them 'sabouteurs' and other such ludicrous nonsense.
Tories baked this poop pie, time for them to eat it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Even assuming that it is partisan spite, would it make the complaint less true?
Considering that not even Angela Merkel agrees with you, no.
The president is correct. Despite criticism from other current and former officials about Ivanka Trump taking a seat at the world leaders' table on Saturday, Angela Merkel — the coolheaded leader of Germany since 2005 and viewed by some as the new “leader of the free world” — has emerged as an unlikely defender of the young Trump amid her G-20 controversy. Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, Merkel noted that, ultimately, it is up to a country to decide who steps in when its leader has to leave a meeting.
“The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel told reporters. “Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”
Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
Last year, I was shot down in flames for arguing that A50 should have been activated on June 24th. The reasons given by the naysayers was that we had no plan.
12 months on, we still have no plan, but if we had activated A50, the worst of Brexit would probably be over, and at least we would know where to go.
We wasted 12 months for nothing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: what did people make of Bojo's latest efforts in the HoC ?
Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.
Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as somebody once said.
They've tried everything to stop Brexit: courtroom battles, parliamentary stalling tactics, Tim Farron, a GE, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, business propaganda, turning the Guardian into a Juncker press release, and so on...
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
It's not wishing it to fail.
It's already failing. Our negotiators appear completely inept. There is no plan. Just mindless little soundbites and Boris being let out of his cage once in a while.
I just don't want to see any other party tarred alongside the Tories, whose fault this entire debacle happens to be.
Much as I loathe the gruesome twosome, May not letting Boris or Gove slink off back under their respective rocks is about the only smart thing she's done.
I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time. We're not going to get anything remotely like a good deal, and business simply will not stand for 'no deal', on account it'd properly wreck our economy.
The pressure is already mounting - and one wonders if that might just be part of the Tory plan after all. Deliberately bodge it, and let public pressure turn the tide.
That could actually be it. Make such a deliberate bollocks of it we give up and retract it. May was a Remainer in the referendum campaign after all. They can't be allowed to get away with it.
I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time
And see Farage coming out of retirement as a result? I think most Remainers would take Brexit over that
On a serious note, just because The Guardian newspaper says Brexit negotiations are failing, doesn't mean they are. Of course Barnier and Juncker will talk down the UK at every turn, I'd be disappointed if they didn't. It's a good, tactical move from them to put pressure on the UK public with a running commentary. The government needs to hold its nerve and push on.
Vested interests have a clear stake in pushing this line that Brexit is failing.
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
How do we make it a success though? Everyone wants different, conflicting things. We've got no cards, credibility or plan.
How do we make it a success though? Everyone wants different, conflicting things. We've got no cards, credibility or plan.
What counts as a success?
Yea this is a key point that is often overlooked imo.
I think a lot of people weighed up the options in the referendum and decided that the potential economic pain was a price worth paying for less foreign influence over our laws and a drop in immigration. So regardless of an economic arrangement, success for them would be just that, less immigration and the elimination of the primacy of European law.
Whether that achieves their unstated motivated in my eyes of returning England to the halycon days before globalism, if those ever existed, is yet to be seen.
I can also imagine those same people looking on with glee at all the wailing laments from London city slickers about how Brexit will hurt the finiancial services industry!
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent - that's what will make Brexit a success.
Root and branch reform is what's needed, starting with out 12th century parliament.
A federal system, an elected senate. More teeth for parliamentary watchdogs and standards commission. More oversight for police and security services.
Better protections for free speech for individuals and newspapers. A crack down on the surveillance state.
A war on corruption and enforcing the rule of law will make Britain an attractive place to do business. Clean up the electoral system
Massive infrastructure projects from John O Groats to Land's end: super highways, high speed rail, airports upgraded, flood defences built for global warming, better broadband etc etc
The northern powerhouse needs to set sail, turn our cities into centres of excellence for R and D for robots, internet whatever
build more ships for the Navy to protect our free trade ethos with the rest of the world.
more police to reign in the criminal gangs blighting Britain,
etc etc etc
I could go on all day, and yeah, I haven't priced all of this
But we need a can do attitude, we need to build build build and get stuck in.
If I were PM, that's what I would do. Build our way out of this.
And he said that the government had "no plan" for what to do in the event of no deal being agreed with the EU
And he was asked if there was a strategy, either public or private, for what would happen if there was no agreement on Brexit.
"There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal," he replied.
His comments come after No 10 sources played down suggestions that Theresa May plans to walk out of Brexit talks in September to show defiance over EU demands for a divorce bill worth tens of billions of pounds.
'Shocking complacency'
Mrs May has said that her view going into the Brexit negotiations was that "no deal is better than a bad deal".
Mr Johnson's comments seem to be at odds with Brexit Secretary David Davis, who told the BBC last month that the government had "worked up in detail" the "no deal" option on Brexit.
Asked about the foreign secretary's remarks, the prime minister's spokeswoman said: "We have said it is right to plan for all eventualities, and that planning is taking place across government."
Downing Street has slapped down Boris Johnson after he said there is “no plan” for leaving the EU without a Brexit deal.
Theresa May’s official spokesman refuted claims by the Foreign Secretary that the Government had not planned for crashing out of the EU in March 2019 with no deal in place.
It comes as some members of the Government have tried to distance themselves from Theresa May’s harder pre-election stance that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.
After hearing of Mr Johnson's words, the No 10 spokesman said: “I've repeatedly said that contingency planning is taking place for a range of scenarios.”
Ms May’s “no deal” rhetoric has been criticised by some of her own MPs since the election, meanwhile Chancellor Philip Hammond has chosen to say that leaving with no deal would be “very, very bad”.
Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said: “There is no plan for no deal, because we’re going to get a great deal and I would, just for the sake of example and illustration, I would remind the honourable lady that there was a time when Britain was not in what we then called the Common Market.”
TBF if there was/is a plan I probably wouldn't tell Boris either
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent
Seems daft beyond belief to vote and act as if we had one then really.
Speaking on current negotiations, I view this current EU insistence on EU law being given primacy above British law for EU citizens in the UK a bloody cheek. EU citizens don't get recourse to the ECJ when in America, in Israel, in China, in India, in Japan, or any other independent nation in the world. Why on earth should they have a different set of rights and appeals to a UK citizen in the UK? The minute you agree to such a thing, you're in effect declaring yourself a vassal state, as your law is suborned to that of a foreign power when dealing with its citizens on your own soil.
I can't quite decide if they're being serious in demanding this, or if it's a case of 'Ask for the stars so you get the minor continent you actually wanted'.
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent
Seems daft beyond belief to vote and act as if we had one then really.
This. If you don't have a plan the responsible action is to come up with one, not to expect the people who told you this was a bad idea in the first place to salvage it for you.
It is ridiculous. You should have the same rights as people in the country where you live, wherever that is. And 'circumstances' change all the time regardless of whether you're a citizen or not, laws and economies change and evolve.
Mr Barnier said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizens' rights.
Absurd. We can't leave the EU, and have EU citizens living under different laws/rights to British citizens in our country. It seems that they just aren't interested in serious negotiation. No country would stand for this. As Ketara says above, the EU don't expect the US to give EU visitors different rights.
All I can imagine is that there are those in the EU who aren't interested in negotiation, they just want it to collapse to punish the UK as a show of force to other EU members - all the EU citizens caught up in this disaster are expendable.
I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work. And they should really know this. This is why I say it's a complete and utter waste of time even negotiating with them if they're going to make these completely duff idiot demands. Oh, and this is partly why I voted to leave. Their arrogance, hubris and nit picky need to rule over everything they see.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
Ketara wrote: Speaking on current negotiations, I view this current EU insistence on EU law being given primacy above British law for EU citizens in the UK a bloody cheek. EU citizens don't get recourse to the ECJ when in America, in Israel, in China, in India, in Japan, or any other independent nation in the world. Why on earth should they have a different set of rights and appeals to a UK citizen in the UK? The minute you agree to such a thing, you're in effect declaring yourself a vassal state, as your law is suborned to that of a foreign power when dealing with its citizens on your own soil.
I can't quite decide if they're being serious in demanding this, or if it's a case of 'Ask for the stars so you get the minor continent you actually wanted'.
Great point.
Personally, I think the EU are chancing their arm.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
Eh? Since when did the Supreme Court of the USA influence UK law?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Because they moved here under a specific set of circumstances, and the same will be reciprocated to UK ex-pats?
No it isn't. The 'same' being reciprocated would involve British citizens in the EU being permitted to have British courts supersede the EU ones. Can you imagine Spanish fury, if we demanded British expats have the right to have any rights granted to citizens in Britain apply equally in Spain, with attendant rights to refer disputes to British courts? There'd be an outrage.
I repeat, EU citizens do not enjoy such privileges in any other independent nation on the planet, nor does any other nation expect its citizens to have these sorts of rights available whilst abroad in foreign countries. Why on earth would we permit them in the UK? It's a direct infringement upon the sovereign law of the nation-state. The fact we're leaving the EU means that we leave the EU's jurisdiction. That's the entire point.
That's what makes me think this is a negotiating ploy. May has offered to allow anyone here for five years a 'settled' status. I expect they will row back on this in exchange for 'settled' status being granted to those who have been here for two years or somesuch.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
In that situation, the US would apply diplomatic pressure to ensure their citizens were not mistreated.
There's no some absurd situations whereby if we democratically pass an anti-terrorist law permitting the police to hold people for two weeks without being charged or somesuch, the US citizen arrested by it can claim immunity to the law, or refer it back to a US court. Which is what the EU are asking for. They are asking for European law to take precedence over British law when applicable to EU citizens on British soil.
Future War Cultist wrote: Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.
The question is why the people that don't want a hard Brexit should care about doing this at all. As a generalisation it will be the young and the educated that *mostly* will be responsible for trying to pull the country out of the fire. However in the majority they do not want to leave the EU, are being completely ignored (even though over 48% of the population voted to remain) all to pander to the older generation (and for a significant minor proportion of Leavers, also bigots) who think getting out of the EU should just be regardless of the arguments for *insert random ideological nonsense*. Yet these in the majority being the older generation will sit back retire and let things happen and just yell from the sidelines as things don't go the way they want. So why should the young and the educated actually be bothered to help the country out of the mess it is creating for itself. Why not just take the older generation view of, thanks for the education and support to get us to a well earning job, now here are two fingers, we are off to sunnier, more liberal, climates?
It's like sharing a house with your family and half of them think putting dynamite round all the foundations stating lets make our house great again and doing this will save £35.0 a week on heating bills is a good idea. The other half point out that all it is going to do is bring the house down. But they blow the dynamite anyway and after the explosion settles, the first half dust themselves down, get out the deck chair and start asking those that pointed out that blowing up the house was a bad idea to get on with rebuilding a new one whilst they sit and drink tea (all the whilst stating that those complaining are saboteurs or betraying the family).
I repeat, EU citizens do not enjoy such privileges in any other independent nation on the planet, nor does any other nation expect its citizens to have these sorts of rights available whilst abroad in foreign countries. Why on earth would we permit them in the UK? It's a direct infringement upon the sovereign law of the nation-state. The fact we're leaving the EU means that we leave the EU's jurisdiction. That's the entire point.
There is a difference here though that is being ignored. With free movement people knew what they were getting and the rights they enjoyed in Italy, France, Poland etc were similar at the EU level. The Polish person knew that the Italian person they married may continue to work in Italy for 5 years whilst they worked in the UK and when they decided to have a family they could do that anywhere in the EU. These were the rights they had when they moved. If you move to a non-EU country you move under the knowledge that the rights there *are* different and that you are making a conscious decision as to whether you accept them or not.
In this case the rights were known but are now being taken away. I know plenty of EU nationals that don't want to be considered 'settled' in the UK and think the idea and proposal is ludicrous and demeaning (and the ID idea is tantamount to requiring them to tattoo a barcode on their arm). For these people the UK is stripping them of the rights they had and I can understand from the EU perspective that it believes its citizens should deserve to maintain these rights regardless of what the individual nation chooses. Personally I wish they'd require all current EU citizens to continue to have those rights, UK citizens and all.
Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as somebody once said.
They've tried everything to stop Brexit: courtroom battles, parliamentary stalling tactics, Tim Farron, a GE, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, business propaganda, turning the Guardian into a Juncker press release, and so on...
They won't stop, and neither should we.
Erm... strictly speaking you get a lot more freedoms by being in the EU than out of it. Strictly speaking by wanting to leave you are sacrificing freedoms despite the claimed eternal vigilance....
I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time
And see Farage coming out of retirement as a result? I think most Remainers would take Brexit over that
Depends on how it is done. If the public view of Brexit becomes more hostile and ridiculed then Farage may just become a household joke (we can only hope).
Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.
There is a difference here though that is being ignored.
No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country. You move there, being aware that your status within a country is vulnerable until you take out citizenship, and knowing that the laws of that country will apply so long as you live there. If someone believes it to be different to that, or did not consider it before they moved, then that's their problem. Their neglect does not mean that another government suddenly has the moral right to start demanding its jurisdiction should extend over independent and separate nations.
If I move to Gibraltar and Gibraltar votes for independence five years later, I don't get to suddenly demand that I get some super special rights and recourse to a UK court because I was born on the mainland. I either suck it up and take citizenship, accept that I count as a foreigner and all that entails whilst living there, or move elsewhere.
Them's the break when you move abroad. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Legal systems aren't a pick and mix, where you you get to mix and match the best one depending on which you like best.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It is ridiculous. You should have the same rights as people in the country where you live, wherever that is. And 'circumstances' change all the time regardless of whether you're a citizen or not, laws and economies change and evolve.
Mr Barnier said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizens' rights.
Absurd. We can't leave the EU, and have EU citizens living under different laws/rights to British citizens in our country. It seems that they just aren't interested in serious negotiation. No country would stand for this. As Ketara says above, the EU don't expect the US to give EU visitors different rights.
All I can imagine is that there are those in the EU who aren't interested in negotiation, they just want it to collapse to punish the UK as a show of force to other EU members - all the EU citizens caught up in this disaster are expendable.
The USA isn't part of the EU, so how do imaginary legal arrangements affect the case?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.
This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU? It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote. Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving? How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave. Are you so confident that another vote wouldn't go the other way? To ignore part of the populace is exactly why May is in the mess she is now in. One result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.
To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."
In addition to the above, the referendum (like all British referendums) was not binding on Parliament, so there wasn't a winning side and a losing side.
I think it is pretty likely there will be a second referendum if ever the government can get its act together to produce a set of legislation. It will be interesting to see how the vote falls out.
There is a difference here though that is being ignored.
No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country. You move there, being aware that your status within a country is vulnerable until you take out citizenship, and knowing that the laws of that country will apply so long as you live there. If someone believes it to be different to that, or did not consider it before they moved, then that's their problem. Their neglect does not mean that another government suddenly has the moral right to start demanding its jurisdiction should extend over independent and separate nations.
The EU is not a nation though. It is a group of countries working in principle for the rights of all their citizens. If Gibraltar left the UK and joined the EU (lets hope) then the UK can reasonably expect that it's citizens retain the same rights and aren't barcoded as third class citizens. Indeed the UK tried to do this with Hong Kong although much less successfully. The EU have every right to protect their citizens (and wish they would require it for UK citizens as well, especially those too young to vote for example). It's only May's desire to spy on everyone and get rid of the ECJ that is the problem. However I fully expect that once May is deposed that this will not become an issue. There is more and more recognition that leaving Euratom is likely to be a complete disaster as we neither have the resources and expertise to replace it and is going to effect everything from nuclear power to accessing isotopes for cancer treatment. The problem is that ECJ has rights over Euratom and May is so obsessed with getting out that it is becoming a large can of worms. However to withdraw the request to leave Euratom means withdrawing the Article 50 letter...
The EU is not a nation though. It is a group of countries working in principle for the rights of all their citizens.
Precisely. We're not even part of the same nation. We're just signed up to a treaty. If I wouldn't expect to have those sorts of considerations when in an area abroad that was officially part of my own country, why on earth would I expect to have them just because my country had signed an agreement with them previously?
Put it this way. If you believe that it is right for the EU to look after its citizens by demanding these concessions, it would be entirely reasonable to seek for British courts and law to have jurisidiction over British expats in the EU, yes? Surely in the name of equality, we should be asking for the exact same thing back, right? Since it's a reasonable request and all....
The EU have every right to protect their citizens
Sure. Within Europe. We're not exactly talking about marching EU citizens into death camps after leaving here. Certainly, there's nothing going to happen that would morally justify demanding that British law remain subservient to that of a foreign power.
And the more I consider it, the more I'm convinced they know it. It's a playing piece in a much larger game here. They're asking for something ludicrous to roll back on it later, to make the concession seem larger. It's why they're making such a big song and dance about it in press conferences.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it was a 72.2% turnout, only a piss poor 36% of the populace voted to leave the EU.
And even fewer were actively enthusiastic enough about the EU to bother voting in favour. You can't assume anything about the political leaning of people who don't vote, second guessing what they 'really wanted' had they actually voted. Both sides want to claim the 28% of non-voters as their own quiet majority, which is dishonest.
By choosing not to vote they choose to put the decision in the hands of others.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.
This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?
I don't care how the rest of the country views the EU. They should have voted if they want to Remain. It was said numerous times in this thread during the General Election that you don't have the right to complain if you don't bother to vote. Well that applies to Brexit as well.
This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won.
Except, you know, the side with the most votes?
Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?
Are YOU sure the country favours your side? We don't know either way, because so many people couldn't be arsed to vote. And thats tough gak, they should have voted but chose not to so their wishes were not counted at the appropriate time. Cry me a river.
It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote.
No it was not a "50:50" split, it was a 52:48 split. A very close vote, but there was a one million vote majority in favour of Leave. And in our democratic system, thats all you need. Complaining after the fact that its a weak margin is moving the goal posts.
Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving?
You don't know that. You don't know ANY of that. I don't care for this sort of hypothetical What If speculation. None of this is verifiable, none of this can be tested and challenged.
How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave.
lol, what a fething idiot. She probably shouldn't be voting. I have no sympathy for people like her. Should we apply this logic to General Elections and Governments too? "Oh no, there was a scandal in the first week of the new Government, I want to take back my vote".
Tough gak, thats not how democracy works. You don't get to just change your mind on a whim after the fact. You cast your vote, and you accept the consequences. We aren't playing Life Is Strange.
Are you so confident that another vote wouldn't go the other way? To ignore part of the populace is exactly why May is in the mess she is now in.
I don't care how the vote would go. We had a vote, we had a result. We don't get to keep on changing our minds on a him ad nauseam, that defeats the entire purpose of holding a vote in the first place. Do we get to change our mind after a General Election and recall the Government? No, so why should a Referendum be any different?
One result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.
I'll remember this excuse the next time a party that I dislike wins an election and forms a Government. After all, one General Election result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.
To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."
Excuse me? A democratic vote in our political system, and especially a Yes/No Referendum, is a binary decision. You either get the Candidate or Referendum result you wanted, or you do not. It is by its very nature, an absolute.
Even though Obi Wan is my favourite Jedi, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Obi Wan says. After all, the Jedi have been thoroughly discredited as of Star Wars Episode 8 The Last Jedi.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you couldn't be arsed to vote then why should anyone be arsed to hear your opinion? The ones who didn't vote quite frankly don't count.
The myth that cements our absurd electoral system in place.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.
It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.
Eh? Since when did the Supreme Court of the USA influence UK law?
It doesn't, but it impacts the UK's treatment of their citizens whilst they're in the UK. The UK does it pretty relentlessly in Africa and West Asia, too. You've a lot more rights if you're a Brit in Qatar than if you're an Indonesian in Qatar, for instance, because the UK demands that Qataris respect their citizen's rights (to a level, it's still your fault when a 16 year old Qatari in a Lambourghini crashes into your stationary car, obviously).
Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).
Future War Cultist wrote: If you couldn't be arsed to vote then why should anyone be arsed to hear your opinion? The ones who didn't vote quite frankly don't count.
Voted in both. Regardless which way I did I have every right to post, moan, cheer or say whatever I feel like pn the subject inside of rule one
Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).
Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.
The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.
We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.
Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).
Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.
The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.
We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.
Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.
And yes. Later deals signed and agreements made. However shows that least civilised deals van be made, and not do our talking smart bombs.
Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.
We did indeed. Signed with the sadly defunct Imperial Government of China, who the current administration of China are in no way descended from. Different legal system, different territory controlled, etcetc. Frankly, the Government of Taiwan has as legitimate a claim as the lot sitting in Beijing. We would have been entirely justified in hanging onto it or giving it to the Kuomintang's descendants.
I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism, all in his desire to make a quick political buck out of him shaking hands with a Chinese bloke.
There is a difference here though that is being ignored.
No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country.
But we're not just any foreign country - we're part of a union that has freedom of movement within it. You could move to the UK without having to become a citizen, because you didn't need to, you were already an EU citizen.
Now for people who moved to EU-UK, they are risking losing that EU movement in order to stay in the UK, which is what the EU is asking the UK to honour.
For people who move to a separate UK, they'd have the same deal as any other foreign country.
I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.
Herzlos wrote: I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.
Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.
As I understand it, the EU, and Remainers, are demanding that Britain make all sort of unilateral concessions up-front, without any guarantees from the EU in return.
Beside, EU already began to make moves to settle new deals with other partners. Some seem to be quite made so that the grass is cut under UK's feet.
Meanwhile, your government still has no plan and Great May desperatly tries to save her skin by involving her opponents in the mess. And I'm still pretty sure they're not in a hurry to give her and her party excuses for the building failure in negotiations. ("but it's not because of us that it failed, look, we weren't alone, we were all together for the sake of the country! They are guilty as well!")
Sure, you can try to write hypotheses about how to pull UK's needle out of this situation or how you can make new deals and ignore everything else, but it's quite striking that's you're still about that: writing hypotheses. Time doesn't stop, and the clock is ticking. You really need a plan, and the truth is...your elites have no idea what to do right now.
So much for trusting the Tories. If I was in the opposition, I would just do nothing and watch as they just kill themselves. Then rebuild the country with a new power, while the old one just showed its utmost failure once too much.
And if I was a foreign power, seeing as one party can feth it up to this colossal point without any sign of getting out of their own feth alone...isn't really the ideal partner. Trade asks for trust first. The Tories do a great work at smashing this completely, and for no good reason other than them being unable to stop this chaos. Which is why, one after the other, the countries that would make new partners slowly walk away and would rather wait. They know they can always find another, more interesting.
Oh wait, it's the EU. Gosh, I really wonder why so many recent declarations are made about trade deals with EU or US not really rushing to go to the help of UK, really...
There is a difference here though that is being ignored.
No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country.
But we're not just any foreign country - we're part of a union that has freedom of movement within it.
And as already stated, these sorts of considerations would not be given if it was part of the actual country (Gibraltar) seceding. When we decolonised Africa, we didn't issue 'Authority of British courts' cards to all mainland citizens living out there. And all of those were actually within one jurisdiction? So why on earth are EU citizens so super duper special that the EU courts, which don't even belong to a sovereign power, should continue to have authority in Britain? I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.
I don't think you understand. It's not that they want citizenship, that's easily enough negotiated. It's not that they want the EU to continue to advocate for them, every country does that for its citizens, and if the EU countries want their trade bloc to be the frontman for their embassies, that's entirely their call.
What is being demanded is that in a situation whereby British law may change so it is no longer in accord with European law (which it will), European citizens living in Britain should be able to have recourse to European courts, and that those courts show have the final legal binding judgement. This also presents the bizare reverse zombie scenario whereby the EU later passes additional legislation affecting EU citizens, and Britain is suddenly legally bound to enforce those new rights. Or indeed, to flip it on its head once again, the EU gets to take rights away from its citizens, and then expect its laws to apply ahead of British ones.
It's a mess, frankly. It is asking for European citizens to have an entirely different set of laws and rights applicable to them whilst residing in Britain, and for the British courts to be subservient to European ones regarding events happening on British soil. Which is fine if we're in the EU, but we won't be.
To take up something that's been said before, we're in the club or out of it, and we have to accept that. The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.
Ketara wrote: . The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.
Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.
And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time. Same will happen for UK.
Put simply, we've seen the strategy of the EU now. Demand everything, and leak everything with a negative spin to try and create public pressure, on the basis that domestic Remainers in the UK will automatically agree with whatever they say and hassle the Tories on it.
The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis. That's the man ostensibly in charge of negotiations. It could be because he's clueless, senile, and sleeping in every morning before asking what he's minister of again. Alternatively, his strategy is very clearly a 'cards close to chest' one. One of those two things is the reason we've heard nothing. And I'm not quite convinced he's gone bonkers just yet.
Trump has demonstrated quite well that being the loudest does not equate to being the best organised. As I said at the start of this whole thing, wait until it's over before judging.
Ketara wrote: . The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.
Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.
And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time.
.....Sorry, but did absolutely any of that have anything to do with anything I said?
I mean, it seems to boil down to 'Other countries exist, I think the UK is small and pathetic' tinged with a mild hint of self-congratulating glee.
Ketara wrote: . The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.
Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.
And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time. Same will happen for UK.
Your post oozes contempt and hypocrisy. Colonial power? You're one to talk, your own country has a far darker colonial past than we do.
LONDON — Britain has not softened its position on Brexit and will “challenge” the EU over its calculation of the U.K.’s financial obligations to Brussels, Brexit Secretary David Davis said Tuesday.
After Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called the EU’s estimate of the so-called Brexit bill “extortionate,” Davis told the House of Lords’ EU committee that his department was analyzing the Commission’s proposals “line by line, almost by word” and said the U.K. could make a counter-proposal. The European Commission is reported to put the U.K.’s net obligations at around £60 billion.
He said the general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority, had not fundamentally changed the U.K.’s Brexit stance, saying that the press had “overplayed any softening.”
However, he conceded that the British were “getting to the point of really dealing with practicalities” and indicated that securing an agreement on a transitional arrangement had become a priority.
“We understand the value of transition,” he told the committee, saying that he would prefer to have a deal on it by December, but that this might not fit the EU’s timetable.
“We will do it as quickly as we can but it’s a negotiation,” he said. “Unlike any other area of government where I can say, yes I’ll do this by December, which is what I would do if it was that, I can’t do that and I’ll say we’ll make best endeavors.”
Davis’ cabinet colleague, Chancellor Philip Hammond, has welcomed calls from business for a transition period during which the U.K. would stay in the EU single market and customs union for as long as it takes to agree a new free trade agreement. However, Davis indicated that he envisioned a transition period lasting only until 2021, two years after the U.K. leaves in 2019.
Securing a trade deal, he said, could be achieved by 2019, with the two-year transition acting only as an “implementation period” for what had been agreed.
Getting a trade deal done was “not a technical question, it’s a question of whether the political desire is there,” he said.
On the Brexit bill, Davis said the EU should expect “a process of challenge” from the U.K. He played down Johnson’s remarks and when challenged over the tone of the political discussion around Brexit in the U.K. said that Brussels officials should not read too much into U.K. newspaper reports.
“They read all the British newspapers and they take them, if anything, too seriously. It was a reason of humorous exchange between Jean-Claude Juncker and myself last time I saw him,” he said.
Davis said EU officials no longer fear that other EU countries may want to leave the bloc unless the U.K. is seen to suffer for Brexit, saying that no member countries were likely to follow Britain’s path.
“I don’t think anybody is likely to follow us down this route,” he said. “We’re a very different country. The nearest to us in terms of global reach is probably France and they’re not going to bail out of Europe.”
Cards quite close to the chest indeed. I find his perception of the value European officials place upon the influential power of the British press to be quite interesting. It certainly would explain their strategy thus far.
Come on, they are unable to agree on one clear line about Brexit. Now there are more and more voices for a "softer Brexit", while they were all shut not so long ago. Over the months, you saw many times that they were completely unable to explain clearly what they were intending to do with the negotiations, no clear line to defend, not even the slightest debate about the very core of what will be in the negotiations.
Or didn't you hear what was said by your government during the election and even before it ?
Put simply, we've seen the strategy of the EU now. Demand everything, and leak everything with a negative spin to try and create public pressure, on the basis that domestic Remainers in the UK will automatically agree with whatever they say and hassle the Tories on it.
No, no. You didn't see their strategy. They don't demand anything. They just won't give UK what they think they would have without any effort. Your elites thought it would be a piece of cake once the refefrendum was made. It's not. EU doesn't really have to do anything - your people are already divided, and it was done by none other that your own government - with the referendum, the disastrous campaign for the rushed election and their daily show that they clearly have no clues about what to do and just improvise things as much as they can.
Try to blame EU as much as you want, the truth is the real damage was mostly done by yourself. EU never asked for a referendum, EU never asked for a new election. That was done by your Elites, who thought they were clever than they actually are.
The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis. That's the man ostensibly in charge of negotiations. It could be because he's clueless, senile, and sleeping in every morning before asking what he's minister of again. Alternatively, his strategy is very clearly a 'cards close to chest' one. One of those two things is the reason we've heard nothing. And I'm not quite convinced he's gone bonkers just yet.
I think you really should stop assuming people are competent because of their status. Having power, being born in one wealthy family and having money isn't a guarantee you're free from stupidity and human ignorance.
Actually, incompetence is much more common to meet. And sometimes, the explanation of why such a mess can be possible is really simple; because they are incompetent and just as clueless as you and me about what really to do.
You mentioned Trump. He is the living example than having lots of money and being a powerful businessman doesn't prevent you from that.
Your post oozes contempt and hypocrisy. Colonial power? You're one to talk, your own country has a far darker colonial past than we do.
Of course we have. But as far as I'm concerned, Belgium is still in the EU trying to build something with the other countries. We know very well we can't work alone. Hell, we barely are able to deal with our own regions. Even our nationalists know that it would be a very, very bad idea to get out of EU.
Come on, they are unable to agree on one clear line about Brexit. Now there are more and more voices for a "softer Brexit", while they were all shut not so long ago. Over the months, you saw many times that they were completely unable to explain clearly what they were intending to do with the negotiations, no clear line to defend, not even the slightest debate about the very core of what will be in the negotiations.
Or didn't you hear what was said by your government during the election and even before it ?
You're aware this is normal form for British politics, right?
No, no. You didn't see their strategy. They don't demand anything.
Oh? Was the repeated leaking of supposed discussions and impressions of various British officials, the sum of money they plan to ask for, their demand for European citizens to have additional rights, etcetc purely my imagination then? Do they have some super secret strategy ninjas swooping from the shadows with plans so devious we'll never see them coming?
Do they in actual fact, look like this?
Try to blame EU as much as you want, the truth is the real damage was mostly done by yourself. EU never asked for a referendum, EU never asked for a new election. That was done by your Elites, who thought they were clever than they actually are.
Blame the EU? When did I blame the EU for anything? This is turning into a bad parody now.
The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis.
I think you really should stop assuming people are competent because of their status. Having power, being born in one wealthy family and having money isn't a guarantee you're free from stupidity and human ignorance.
And in one sentence, you've very very clearly delineated how much you actually know, and how much attention should be paid to your political analysis.
David Davis was born to a single mum on a council estate in Tooting. He went to a grammar school, bootstrapped his way up, joined the TA, got a job with Tate and Lyle, was a Minister under John Major's government, and was good enough to be Cameron's main rival. He lost out because they wanted someone young to match Blair. He's not a toff. He didn't get anything he didn't fight for, and he was competent enough to rise to the forefront of British politics in not just one, but two administrations. He has more experience under his belt than any other Tory MP right now.
So.....yeah. Next time you rush to scoff, it might pay to actually spend five seconds on Wikipedia and learn who the main players are.
Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.
We did indeed. Signed with the sadly defunct Imperial Government of China, who the current administration of China are in no way descended from. Different legal system, different territory controlled, etcetc. Frankly, the Government of Taiwan has as legitimate a claim as the lot sitting in Beijing. We would have been entirely justified in hanging onto it or giving it to the Kuomintang's descendants.
I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism, all in his desire to make a quick political buck out of him shaking hands with a Chinese bloke.
True. But what could we also do. Its right in there back yard.
Its dead centre of there influence zone.
We could of maybe kept but it would not have been easy if Beijing decided to lean on the City state.
And yes. Davis is not quite the normal Tory MP of the stereotype.
You're aware this is normal form for British politics, right?
That you find it normal or not is not the question here, and you know it. The point is, it was still done and you don't seem to find it of consequence. It's not a fatality, the people who are voting can say at one time "no". It happened in France, after all - those who were thought to be impossible to remove suddenly were thrown out without warning. Sure, they were replaced by someone not especially better, but ignoring the people's wrath is never a good idea.
Oh? Was the repeated leaking of supposed discussions and impressions of various British officials, the sum of money they plan to ask for, their demand for European citizens to have additional rights, etcetc purely my imagination then? Do they have some super secret strategy ninjas swooping from the shadows with plans so devious we'll never see them coming?
The sum of money was always there. What, you were thinking getting out of agreements was that easy? EU is just asking their money back, that's all. You thought it would be only one way ? UK was benefiting from EU's own treaties as well, it wasn't just "UK spending all their money for the lazy other members".
As for the rights, you know very well you have to deal with all the people working and suddenly finding out there is no legal background for their status anymore. Of course they have to set something clear for everyone.
But is EU really asking for Brexit? The answer is "no". Hell, they even say that if UK want to go back, they can. So if they want to go for Brexit, well yeah they have to negotiate the terms. But most of the EU's "demands" in that are just a way to say to UK "No, you won't have everything your way like this".
Blame the EU? When did I blame the EU for anything? This is turning into a bad parody now.
Well, what you wrote just a bit above certainly looks like you're blaming EU for this situation not to go your way - while I think the incompetence of your elites is doing a pretty good work by itself alone.
And in one sentence, you've very very clearly delineated how little you actually know, and how much attention should be paid to your political analysis.
David Davis was born to a single mum on a council estate in Tooting. He went to a grammar school, bootstrapped his way up, joined the TA, got a job with Tate and Lyle, was a Minister under John Major's government, and was good enough to be Cameron's main rival. He lost out because they wanted someone young to match Blair. He's not a toff. He didn't get anything he didn't fight for, and he was competent enough to rise to the forefront of British politics in not just one, but two administrations. He has more experience under his belt than any other Tory MP right now.
So.....yeah. Next time you rush to scoff, it might pay to actually spend five seconds on Wikipedia and learn who the main players are.
And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job. I work in the administration, I saw many people be my superiors, thrown on this job by...let's say various ways. Most of them don't know anything about the job once they're here, and they have a huge pressure on their shoulders because everyone expects them to succeed because of their qualifications, past jobs and social status. Incompetence isn't far when you're getting a bit too much self-confident and think a bit too great of yourself, while not listening to those who actually know the job and how it works.
The same can happen here to your guy, as pretty much anyone else. That's my point. That you think because he's at this power he won't fail, is being optimistic given the current situation of your country, right now.
That you find it normal or not is not the question here, and you know it. The point is, it was still done and you don't seem to find it of consequence.
No, not really. Why would I find Bojo saying something dumb of consequence? He's been doing it twice a week for the last five years. There's a reason he got sent abroad. With regards to not hearing much from Davis, well...that was kind of the point of my post at the top of the page? I mean, the Tories rarely act with one voice on anything more than a few years into an administration. It's part of the package. Too many egos, and not enough of them have actual access to information. The only ones who have something worth listening to with regards to the Government's position on Brexit are May and Davis (and maybe Hammond, but that's a maybe). And they've all kept their mouths shut for the most part.
The rest are just chaff yakking away giving imaginary headlines for the media. Who spend their time inventing faux-outrage and vastly inflated stories for the most part.
The sum of money was always there. What, you were thinking getting out of agreements was that easy? EU is just asking their money back, that's all. You thought it would be only one way ? UK was benefiting from EU's own treaties as well, it wasn't just "UK spending all their money for the lazy other members"......
Errrr.....I'm going to be frank here. What are you on about? You said the EU hasn't made any demands and I haven't seen their strategy. I indicated several of the EU's designated negotiating targets and their mode of leaking things thus far. Now you've said the above....and I'm clueless. Is this a language barrier, or are you genuinely just going off on a rant?
Well, what you wrote just a bit above certainly looks like you're blaming EU for this situation not to go your way - while I think the incompetence of your elites is doing a pretty good work by itself alone.
Sorry, could you link the bit where I've been blaming the EU for something? I mean, I've been ripping on their presumption for thinking that they can make EU courts pre-eminent in British affairs after we leave, but even then I've been qualifying that I don't think they're serious.
And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job.
No, you said the fact he was rich and blue blooded meant there was no guarantee. So I pointed out he was neither of those things.
Generally speaking, if a politician can hold ministerial positions in two cabinets twenty years apart, that's an indication of a certain level of competency. He worked his way up to being a senior executive at an international company (so he has pretty solid business experience), he has a degree in Molecular Science (so he's clearly got a brain) and so on. Like him or hate him, respect or disrespect him, but trying to make out that he's an idiot reflects more on you.
I repeat, five minutes on Wikipedia mate. Five minutes. Doesn't take long. You can even learn what bad things there are about him to try and argue about.
True. But what could we also do. Its right in there back yard.
Its dead centre of there influence zone.
We could of maybe kept but it would not have been easy if Beijing decided to lean on the City state.
If we'd kept it, they'd have harrumphed, and we'd have had another Gibraltar/Falklands scenario, where they make a bit of noise once every three years. So long as we took a referendum on what the people there wanted, I doubt anyone at home would have cared about trying to give it back, and so long as we're part of NATO, China would never have touched it militarily. As a port facility, there's not even a risk of a Berlin Airlift situation developing.
No, we could have kept Hong Kong easily. Or given it to Taiwan, or (better yet) negotiated an extension of the lease from Taiwan (since they're as legit as the Chinese Government). But no. Blair wanted to play International Statesmen, so now people get dragged off in the night.
Ketara wrote:
Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.
The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.
We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.
We're dealing with different specific circumstances, yes. But, A) it's an example of one sovereign nation enforcing laws on another sovereign nation, which was being laughed at as an absurdity and B) we have no precedent whatsoever for Brexit and any example to make a point is always going to be 'closest fit'.
Ketara wrote:
I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism...
They were handed to a rotten, totalitarian regime, but not a communist one.
Ketara wrote:Why would I find Bojo saying something dumb of consequence? He's been doing it twice a week for the last five years. There's a reason he got sent abroad.
Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.
And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job. I work in the administration, I saw many people be my superiors, thrown on this job by...let's say various ways. Most of them don't know anything about the job once they're here, and they have a huge pressure on their shoulders because everyone expects them to succeed because of their qualifications, past jobs and social status. Incompetence isn't far when you're getting a bit too much self-confident and think a bit too great of yourself, while not listening to those who actually know the job and how it works.
The same can happen here to your guy, as pretty much anyone else. That's my point. That you think because he's at this power he won't fail, is being optimistic given the current situation of your country, right now.
It's called the Peter Principle - people that do well get promoted up until they are out of their depth / ability level. He might have worked hard and been good at lower level politics but he seems completely clueless now. Which isn't entirely his fault; he was vying for position in the party and has been landed with a job that's thankless and impossible.
Herzlos wrote: I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.
Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.
That's clearly stated in the EU official position. Uk expats will get the same treatment.
The most significant legislative change in memory, and it looks like it should have been straightforward, but is going to devolve into a right cat fight.
Half and half. Thatcher initiated it, Blair enacted it. The handover took place during his 'premiership'. Here he is on the stage for the whole thing;.
That being said, I wasn't aware of the extent of Thatcher's hand in the affair. My opinion of the woman just downgraded somewhat.
Herzlos wrote: I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.
Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.
That's clearly stated in the EU official position. Uk expats will get the same treatment.
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.
I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing. His prominence shows how you can grease your way up in a party, networking and building a portfolio as you go, whilst being in no way responsible to the people who vote for you. You just need the right connections to get dropped into a safe seat, enough money to keep your face frontpage (so people recognise you), and enough political ability to not get trodden underfoot. If you have all those, you can be an absolute bastard and still reach the top.
It ties into what I said several pages back, about how MP's really aren't in serious way accountable to their constituents.
Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.
I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing.
Alas, the majority of voters don't care about politics, so the eccentric posh man with the absurd middle name and funny hair gets voted in as Mayor of the most multicultural city in the UK twice irrespective of being a paternalistic bigot.
Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.
I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing.
Alas, the majority of voters don't care about politics, so the eccentric posh man with the absurd middle name and funny hair gets voted in as Mayor of the most multicultural city in the UK twice irrespective of being a paternalistic bigot.
You also have to take into account the 'swing' of politics. People get bored of incumbents because they get into so many troubles and scandals of their own. I'm convinced a rabid catfish could have beat the lovely Ken Livingstone to be Mayor by 2008.
And frankly, I'm not convinced Boris is worse than Ken. He's a real git. Khan's definitely an improvement on the pair, even if he is a hypocrite.
On a separate note, I love how the Tories are now desperately trying to figure out how to appeal to young people since they were the difference between Corbyn getting utterly slammed and making a few gains.
Just goes to show, the politicians really don't care about you until you vote as a large bloc. Then they're all over you. It makes me laugh though, that the only thing they can come up with is tuition fees.
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.
Every major contract has a juristiction section that states which court has say over what. If it's not the ECJ it can perfectly be the ECHR. Or a purpose-built arbitration system like in many FTAs.
Forgive my ignorance, and it would be a supreme irony if it were possible, but if the UK is not happy with the EU's Brexit divorce bill, can we challenge it at the ECJ or the ECHR?
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.
We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.
Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.
r_squared wrote: I voted conservative in the last GE to keep UKIP out,and it worked, just. Just the other day I informed my MP, Matt Warman, exactly why he wouldn't be getting my vote this time as I cannot support the conservatives constant "party first" priority.
That was until I spotted a rumour that Paul "Eddie Hitler" Nuttal OBE, BSC, BSHTR might stand in my constituency. If that's the case, you may see me in the news hurling various kitchen waste products in his direction and swearing vigorously at him for forcing me to vote Tory, again.
He had plenty practice dodging projectiles when he was leading England into French crossbowmen at Agincourt so you've nae chance of hitting him.
Ketara wrote: ...On a separate note, I love how the Tories are now desperately trying to figure out how to appeal to young people since they were the difference between Corbyn getting utterly slammed and making a few gains.
Just goes to show, the politicians really don't care about you until you vote as a large bloc. Then they're all over you. It makes me laugh though, that the only thing they can come up with is tuition fees.
It's bizarre how Theresa May seems to think that the overriding reason that they lost the youth vote, is being priced out of buying their own home. She's so far out of touch, she might as well be another life form altogether.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.
This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?
I don't care how the rest of the country views the EU. They should have voted if they want to Remain. It was said numerous times in this thread during the General Election that you don't have the right to complain if you don't bother to vote. Well that applies to Brexit as well.
This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won.
Except, you know, the side with the most votes?
Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?
Are YOU sure the country favours your side? We don't know either way, because so many people couldn't be arsed to vote. And thats tough gak, they should have voted but chose not to so their wishes were not counted at the appropriate time. Cry me a river.
It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote.
No it was not a "50:50" split, it was a 52:48 split. A very close vote, but there was a one million vote majority in favour of Leave. And in our democratic system, thats all you need. Complaining after the fact that its a weak margin is moving the goal posts.
No it wasn't, it was 700,000 more people voted to leave because you are forgetting you have to reach 50% not 100%. Look at it this way, that's the approximate number of children in the last year that became eligible to vote and the approximate number of people and about seven tenths of the number of people that died in the last year. You are focussing on one point in time without really considering that any statistical sample always fluctuates over a day, a month, a year etc. You could have rerun the results every day for a month and the results would have been different on each of those days. This is where the statistics come in. The likelihood that we know the true view of the country from that one single event is hugely flawed because it's a small difference (the 2%) with a large uncertainty (the 30%). If you took this result to any numerate conference and stated that the result was definitive you'd be laughed out of the hall. The only thin you can say is that the result is unknown because the statistical uncertainty is too large.
Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving?
You don't know that. You don't know ANY of that. I don't care for this sort of hypothetical What If speculation. None of this is verifiable, none of this can be tested and challenged.
Actually that's not correct. You can do this from a statistical perspective; it's not possible to do it at a personal level but with a large population it is relatively easy to do. I could easily counter how you know that it isn't true? That's why you take statistical samples. You can be pretty confident when the result is 80:20, but when things are finely balanced then making decisions based on such information is highly questionable.
How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave.
lol, what a fething idiot. She probably shouldn't be voting. I have no sympathy for people like her. Should we apply this logic to General Elections and Governments too? "Oh no, there was a scandal in the first week of the new Government, I want to take back my vote".
Tough gak, thats not how democracy works. You don't get to just change your mind on a whim after the fact. You cast your vote, and you accept the consequences. We aren't playing Life Is Strange.
Your empathy for you fellow humans is outstanding. It appears that because you got the way you wanted the UK to Wrexit itself you are happy to ignore the feelings, desires or views of anyone else?
I don't care how the vote would go. We had a vote, we had a result. We don't get to keep on changing our minds on a him ad nauseam, that defeats the entire purpose of holding a vote in the first place. Do we get to change our mind after a General Election and recall the Government? No, so why should a Referendum be any different?
No decision should be made on statistically poor information. It's a good example of why referendums are a bad idea because unless they provide a statistically significant result then it actually leaves you with more uncertainty, rather than less. And yes we do get to change our mind about government. It happens every 5 years (barring foolish actions by a PM).
I'll remember this excuse the next time a party that I dislike wins an election and forms a Government. After all, one General Election result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.
That's not how our parliament works. We have MPs that represent the country, it is not a binary decision. The Government generally comes from the majority party but doesn't have to, and they still have to get anything they want generally approved by parliament,; although I see May wants to try and find other medieval ways of making sure she pushes through anything she wants...
To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."
Excuse me? A democratic vote in our political system, and especially a Yes/No Referendum, is a binary decision. You either get the Candidate or Referendum result you wanted, or you do not. It is by its very nature, an absolute.
It's bizarre how Theresa May seems to think that the overriding reason that they lost the youth vote, is being priced out of buying their own home. She's so far out of touch, she might as well be another life form altogether.
I think one of the main problems with the Tories is that they (in general) seem unable to grasp that their personal situation isn't normal across the population. How much does May or Johnson earn? How many doors were opened by family? Presumably one of her bigger concerns was buying her first house, rather than being able to afford to go to uni for instance?
There seems to be this Tory idea that poor people "just need to work harder" because that's what they feel they did. It's' easy to work harder when your dad gets you a job in an office. It's impossible to work harder if you're an out of work pattern maker and the shipyards don't exist anymore.
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.
We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.
Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.
I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.
The most significant legislative change in memory, and it looks like it should have been straightforward, but is going to devolve into a right cat fight.
Perhaps if they hadn't decided that it was a good idea to pull out a piece of legislation enacted by Henry VIII to force through changes rather than go through the parliamentary process (anyone see echoes of article 50 here?) then perhaps she might have got more consensus. However MPs wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't argue against this and not just give the keys to make up what they want to May and Davis
If only I could believe it's true, I feel a bit moist myself at the though of it.
Pfft, don't be silly. The new people heading her team are just telling her this is what she needs to say, however I think I can fill in some blanks for her...
She did shed a tear when she realised she was going to go down as an even worse and incompetent PM than the last one.
She did shed a tear when she realised she was going to have to give a bung to those that supported a softer Brexit (not that they were homophobic/antiabortion crazys)
She did shed a tear when she realised she was not going to be able to dictate everything in parliament
She did shed a tear when she realised people were thinking Corbyn would make a better job of things than she is
of course
She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised that government delaying of fire safety standards caused the deaths of a hundred people
She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised nurses were having to use food banks
She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised her and conservative policies were making disabled peoples lives hell
She *didn't* shed a tear when homelessness was increasing
Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.
What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state or under threat of military retaliation for not complying.
I mean, if you'd be cool with it, or you'd prefer to be under the ECJ, or you think European citizens should get special rights, that's fine and good for you, but kind of beside the point. Trying to dress it up as something it isn't though (which appears to be what you're doing -I could be wrong, I'm having trouble deciphering your precise meaning here-) as Jouso is above though, is just bizare.
Full reciprocal equivalency would entail British law, post Brexit, applying to British citizens resident within Europe, on the whatever areas of law the EU would like to be applied to their own citizens within Britain. That is an equivalent two way exchange. I repeat, if Europe is offering this reciprocally, then I will happily withdraw my remarks. I would appreciate a link to them offering precisely that though.
There's not really much else to be said on the matter.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
Pointless tbh, you always run into the same types who say, parrot like, "we won, you lost, get over it." They're immune to argument, I know a few personally, and they're terrified of a rerun, because they think they'll lose.
Oh, and thinly veiled threats of civil unrest and riots on the streets by notables such as Jacob Rees-Mogg if the "will of the people" is denied. I'd love to see a brexiteer riot. Based on the demographics, A and E would be overwhelmed with fractured hips and high blood pressure victims within minutes of it kicking off. That's as long as they don't hold it on a Wednesday that is, got to get to the Post Office for the pension.
I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.
What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state or under threat of military retaliation for not complying.
I mean, if you'd be cool with it, or you'd prefer to be under the ECJ, or you think European citizens should get special rights, that's fine and good for you, but kind of beside the point. Trying to dress it up as something it isn't though (which appears to be what you're doing -I could be wrong, I'm having trouble deciphering your precise meaning here-) as Jouso is above though, is just bizare.
Full reciprocal equivalency would entail British law, post Brexit, applying to British citizens resident within Europe, on the whatever areas of law the EU would like to be applied to their own citizens within Britain. That is an equivalent two way exchange. I repeat, if Europe is offering this reciprocally, then I will happily withdraw my remarks. I would appreciate a link to them offering precisely that though.
There's not really much else to be said on the matter.
It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.
I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.
What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state.
Extraterritoriality is the technical term. There's plenty of instances of it happening.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
The problem is that even if you say, 'Okay, let's take the views of the Remainers' into consideration, it just dilutes the question further. Do they want a vote for continual full involvement in Europe? To remain but try and renegotiate specific aspects? And if you remain in anyway, how do you begin to accomodate that 52% of the vote who explicitly voted to leave?
No matter how many referendums you run, no matter how much you dilute the question in five directions, you actually can't please everyone. It's a clusterfeth of tremendous proportions. I think the way you can please the largest chunk of the country is to go with the 52% at this point, purely on the basis that 'Leave' is quite unequivocal. Even that gives you problems though, because then it breaks down to into 'Hard or soft Brexit', and you have to face the issue; is a soft Brexit more or less equivalent to staying in most regards?
I don't know. The country has split so far on this one, I think whatever happens, the result was going to be decried as an outrage. Which means we'll end up doing whatever the Government feels like doing, and they'll do whatever they think will them the most votes.
People tell Cameron off for holding the referendum, but it was clearly something a lot of people felt strongly about (or 52% wouldn't have voted to leave). Where he went wrong was being an ass, and not laying out a clear set of points on what results would lead to what steps by the government.
I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.
What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state.
Extraterritoriality is the technical term. There's plenty of instances of it happening.
Aye. And virrtually all of them are either diplomats, specific scientific sites, vassal states, or states under threat of extreme military retribution if they don't go along with it. Not sure that's the sort of position we're in, and even if we were, it would be then be morally disgusting for the EU to be trying to replicate colonial style relations. There's not really a positive way of viewing this.
So to reiterate, why are EU citizens so super special they should get to stand aside from British law when in Britain?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
That is exactly right. Every time some minister or so-called leader goes on the radio and says "We are carrying out the will of the people" I think, "No you're not, you're carrying out the will of half the people."
However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.
It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.
Personally, I'm not sure, hence the question.
The answer is yes to both. The American can, because Spain is within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
I reckon this is the real reason Phil has dialed back on the PAs.
Whilst they're better than the old dot matrix ones they can still be right fethers to unjam and then there's the whole driver update fiasco to consider as well.
Gonna cost us a small fortune in cartridges I think* -- might buy some shares in them tomorrow -- but fair play to Liz for agreeing to help out.
However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.
How is it possible to give clear Brexit proposals as to what staying and leaving mean prior to a referenda though, when the only way they'll become known is after two years of negotiation on the basis of leaving? Not trying to be awkward, but I don't see how that's possible.
However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.
This is probably both the wisest and most honest course of action.
Vote again when the people actually know what they're voting about and how it will affect them, pro's and con's for both bremain and brexit.
No matter how many referendums you run, no matter how much you dilute the question in five directions, you actually can't please everyone. It's a clusterfeth of tremendous proportions. I think the way you can please the largest chunk of the country is to go with the 52% at this point, purely on the basis that 'Leave' is quite unequivocal. Even that gives you problems though, because then it breaks down to into 'Hard or soft Brexit', and you have to face the issue; is a soft Brexit more or less equivalent to staying in most regards?
This is my personal sticking point: you hadn't even decided what leaving the EU would look like. You got a vote between one known factor and one unknown factor. How is that helpful for any sane purpose at all?
It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.
Personally, I'm not sure, hence the question.
The answer is yes to both. The American can, because Spain is within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
So, an EU national in the UK will not have equivalency with a Brit ex-pat in the EU if they cannot appeal to the ECJ in the UK after we leave. What are we going to offer in recompense for this loss of access to this level of Law? Or are we not going for equivalency?
You will and should be subject and have access to the Law of the land you choose to reside in. If you wish to be subject to the Law of the EU...you should live in the fething EU.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
The problem is that even if you say, 'Okay, let's take the views of the Remainers' into consideration, it just dilutes the question further. Do they want a vote for continual full involvement in Europe? To remain but try and renegotiate specific aspects? And if you remain in anyway, how do you begin to accomodate that 52% of the vote who explicitly voted to leave?
On reflection, the government should have stated clearly that the referendum was advisory, and that the result would be taken into consideration but not acted upon as a binary in out. It was a way to "take the temperature" of the country and use that to work out what to do next.
Realistically, with the referendum result, they could have gone back to the EU and said "look this is what the people of the UK feel" it's dicey and with the rise of anti EU feeling in other countries, real reforms could have been enacted.
That, or we could have started exercising some of the controls of our borders which we hadn't done under EU law to address the concerns of the population of the UK. Basically, actually taken a note of people's feelings and acted on them in a positive and constructive way rather than the bloody mess they've made of everything so far.
But we didn't do that, and we're here now, and everyone is shouting and worried and basically clueless. So that went well.
So, the individuals who moved here before we pulled the rug out from under them just get told "tough, feth off if you don't like it?"
With all due respect, yes. As I mentioned before, if I move to Gibraltar now, and they declare independence in five years, I wouldn't start demanding that British courts would hold jurisdiction over me. I'd accept that I either needed to apply for citizenship, deal with the law of the land as it now stood, or move. I wouldn't dream of having the arrogance to think that the British Government should start telling the new Gibraltarian Government that their new laws shouldn't apply to me, on account of the fact that when I moved there I wasn't expecting them to declare independence.
Why? Because it would be their bloody country! And that's using as an example a territory that is literally several steps further integrated than we ever were into the EU.
I repeat, the only cases where this sort of thing has occurred outside of diplomats, international science projects, and one off well reasoned personal exemptions, are in cases of colonialism and military bullying.
To flip it around, if we'd stayed in the EU and I'd be in Greece when the Greeks opted to leave? I wouldn't seriously expect for one second for the Greeks to somehow make a super special case where I'd get to be under their law even though Greece had left. Or the French. Or anyone.
As of yet, nobody has given me a single good reason why EU legal jurisdiction should continue to apply for EU citizens in the UK after exit beyond 'They thought we were part of the EU when they moved here, and they might not want to live under slightly different laws'. To which I say, well, sorry about that. But that's not really a sufficiently good enough reason to subvert the democratic rule of British law, y'know? People think lots of things when they move to different countries, but this is the first time I've ever heard it used as a justification for excluding people from the local legal system and using a foreign one.
If they don't like the laws here, they can claim citizenship, and vote to influence our laws like everyone else who lives here. Or they can go somewhere else that fits their tastes better. Much like me, and every other bloody native on this island. I don't get to pick to have specific US laws and courts apply to me because I like them better, why should the person living next door have that option?
So, the individuals who moved here before we pulled the rug out from under them just get told "tough, feth off if you don't like it?"
With all due respect, yes. As I mentioned before, if I move to Gibraltar now, and they declare independence in five years, I wouldn't start demanding that British courts would hold jurisdiction over me. I'd accept that I either needed to apply for citizenship, deal with the law of the land as it now stood, or move. I wouldn't dream of having the arrogance to think that the British Government should start telling the new Gibraltarian Government that their new laws shouldn't apply to me, on account of the fact that when I moved there I wasn't expecting them to declare independence.
Why? Because it would be their bloody country! And that's using as an example a territory that is literally several steps further integrated than we ever were into the EU.
I repeat, the only cases where this sort of thing has occurred outside of diplomats, international science projects, and one off well reasoned personal exemptions, are in cases of colonialism and military bullying.
To flip it around, if we'd stayed in the EU and I'd be in Greece when the Greeks opted to leave? I wouldn't seriously expect for one second for the Greeks to somehow make a super special case where I'd get to be under their law even though Greece had left. Or the French. Or anyone.
As of yet, nobody has given me a single good reason why EU legal jurisdiction should continue to apply for EU citizens in the UK after exit beyond 'They thought we were part of the EU when they moved here, and they might not want to live under slightly different laws'. To which I say, well, sorry about that. But that's not really a sufficiently good enough reason to subvert the democratic rule of British law, y'know? People think lots of things when they move to different countries, but this is the first time I've ever heard it used as a justification for excluding people from the local legal system and using a foreign one.
If they don't like the laws here, they can claim citizenship, and vote to influence our laws like everyone else who lives here. Or they can go somewhere else that fits their tastes better. Much like me, and every other bloody native on this island. I don't get to pick to have specific US laws and courts apply to me because I like them better, why should the person living next door have that option?
OK, to clarify, this is what's being said...
European court of justice
The ECJ should not be allowed to rule on UK cases that will not be before the court on the day Britain leaves the EU, the Brexit department said.
The position puts the UK at odds with Brussels’ negotiating position that the ECJ should continue to have jurisdiction over cases that originate in UK courts before Britain’s departure date. Cases before the ECJ can take many years to be resolved.
The UK’s position paper on the ECJ says the court should not be able to hear UK cases from the day after Britain leaves the EU, but could still rule on UK law if the cases begin before the departure date.
So, the EU have stated that they only want to continue with cases brought to the ECJ before the UK leaves the EU. That would seem reasonable. If someone is mid way through a complex legal case that has been put before the court, it should be allowed to play out, as at the time of the complaint, the ECJ was asked by the parties involved to make a judgement.
After the UK leaves, no further cases maybe brought to the ECJ.
This seems reasonable, and about what I would expect from any transitional agreement. It's not placing primacy of the ECJ over the UK in anything other than in a limited number if case that would be already in motion before we leave.
You're looking at a different issue to me. To quote from official European Council Guidelines:
Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be the first priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures.
Barnier has tweeted:-
“EU goal on citizens rights: same level of protection as in EU law. More ambition, clarity and guarantees needed than in today’s UK position.”
From Mr Juncker
Juncker later added that he could not see how the European court of justice could be excluded from being involved in the protection of the rights of EU nationals after the UK leaves the bloc in 2019. The UK wants the supreme court to be the arbiter of any disputes rather than the court in Luxembourg.
The Commission should have full powers for the monitoring and the Court of Justice of the European Union should have full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
In its report on The Human Rights Implications of Brexit, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) expresses great fear that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will do significant damage to the constitutional framework for protecting human rights. For reasons outlined in our submission to the JCHR, the report’s fear is misplaced and betrays important misunderstandings about human rights and their foundations. Fundamental human rights are not created by treaties with foreign powers. They are moral truths that states should recognise and to which they should give effect. The UK has long had an enviable reputation for securing rights and for doing so by way of the ordinary processes of parliamentary democracy and common law adjudication.
Human Rights after Brexit
The obvious answer to the JCHR’s anxiety about how rights will be protected after Brexit is that they will once again be secured by a sovereign Parliament, acting within a mature political tradition and answerable to the electorate, and by an executive that is accountable to Parliament and subject to the ordinary law of the land, including the rulings of independent courts.
The report is wrong to assert that membership of the EU has been pivotal to the UK’s record of rights protection and that withdrawal puts the future of rights protection in doubt. Equally mistaken is the JCHR’s unwarranted assumption that the UK would not have acted to secure certain rights but for EU involvement. On top of this, the JCHR wrongly assumes that rights are best protected by supranational rights adjudication. Rather than being viewed as a guardian of rights, the Luxembourg Court is best understood as a motor of integration which almost always resolves legal questions in a pro-Union – i.e. more rather than less integrationist – fashion. Its expansive interpretations of the scope and content of EU fundamental rights should be seen above all as policies strengthening and expanding its own jurisdiction and its reach into the national laws of member states.
The basic point of Brexit is that UK institutions will now be responsible for how the UK is governed. It is striking that the JCHR shies away from this responsibility by lamenting the prospect that developments in EU law and the case law of the CJEU will no longer automatically take effect in the UK.
The Committee’s fear about the future of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be seen in this light. The Charter’s scope is uncertain and its content is vague. It is a vehicle for a great expansion of judicial power and it should have no place in UK parliamentary democracy. The Great Repeal Bill should bring to an end its continuing force in our law.
After Brexit, it will be for Parliament to decide whether to depart from the legal status quo. It is therefore absurd for the JCHR to demand that before triggering Article 50 the Government should itemise the rights that EU law protects and its intentions in relation to each of them. This would be a colossal waste of time and wholly premature. The Government cannot itself repeal laws it thinks undesirable – it will be for each successive Parliament to decide how or if to change the law.
The JCHR draws attention to the risk that Parliament may empower ministers to change the law by way of sweeping Henry VIII clauses. This is a real risk and warrants caution. However, the complexity of law reform after Brexit will require a combination of primary and secondary lawmaking and the trick will be to confine and focus the latter, not to eschew it altogether.
Residency Rights
The main substantive recommendation in the Committee’s report is that the Government unilaterally guarantee permanent residence to all those EU nationals legally resident in the UK. To do otherwise, the JCHR suggests, would be wrongly to treat fundamental human rights as bargaining chips.
However, there is clearly no fundamental human right on the part of all EU nationals resident in the UK at present to remain permanently in the UK. The rights of legal residence such nationals now enjoy are obviously rights that are contingent on the continuing force of the EU treaties. The JCHR’s proposal is to confer a novel right on EU nationals. The right is not less novel simply because Article 8 of the ECHR is likely to be called in aid to challenge attempts to uphold clear migration law.
Notwithstanding the JCHR’s muddled legal analysis, it would of course be very wrong to disrupt the lives of the many EU nationals who have settled here. And no one has proposed doing so. However, it may well be premature – or extravagant – to confer new rights of permanent residence on all EU nationals now lawfully resident in the UK unilaterally.
It would be premature without first considering reciprocity with the relevant member states, which may be necessary to discharge the responsibility of British authorities to secure the rights of UK citizens living abroad. It would be extravagant if it failed to distinguish EU nationals who are recently arrived from those who are long-settled and, especially, if it ignored the risk to others that some EU nationals may pose, risks that EU law has forbidden the UK from addressing.
The JCHR is quite right that settling residence rights is very important. But as the JCHR itself notes, the Government agrees and is already making this a priority. The Government might usefully assure EU nationals resident in the UK that it intends to define and establish the right of EU nationals to remain, but nothing in the JCHR’s report provides any compelling reason for it to go further at this stage.
Conclusion
Overall, the JCHR’s alarmism about human rights after Brexit is misplaced. Not only alarmist, the JCHR’s report rests on one mistaken assumption after another. Above all, it assumes without evidence that the UK would not have sought to secure certain rights but for our membership of the EU, which in turn leads it to wrongly assume that there will be a ‘net loss’ of rights protection following withdrawal from the EU. In this, the JCHR singularly fails to recognise the opportunity for withdrawal to improve the constitutional arrangements by which human rights are protected within the UK. No state has a perfect record, but the UK’s record of protecting fundamental rights is the match of most countries in the EU and beyond. Following Brexit, the JCHR itself will have an important role to play in the architecture of rights protection in the UK. We hope that at that time the JCHR will be less dewy-eyed about the EU and exhibit a better grasp of the proven capacity of our parliamentary democracy to respect and enhance human rights protection and the rule of law.
Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.
This statement was not a line in a George Orwell novel, nor was it made by a third world dictator or an authoritarian government; it is written in the current British government’s manifesto. Shortly after that manifesto was launched and in the aftermath of a devastating terror attack on Westminster bridge that left seven people dead, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and blamed the internet.
She claimed that regulation was needed because it would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and said that technology firms are not doing enough. “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed – yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide,” she said.
Some claimed that blaming the internet for a terror attack was a poor response from the country’s leader, others debated whether technology companies actually can do more, but few pointed out the potentially terrifying implications of such regulation.
The Prime Minister’s attempt to gain more power by calling for a general election failed spectacularly and left her clinging onto power by her fingertips. She was forced to pull many of her manifesto promises, but internet regulation remained. And it appears to have become one of her main goals as she tries to stabilise her government and reassert the party-manufactured notion that she is a strong leader.
If she is successful in implementing the policy, it is not clear what internet regulation in Britain would look like but based on recent remarks the best comparison may be The Great Firewall of China. China’s regulation measure censors the internet by criminalising certain online comments, blocking select website content, filtering out key words in searches and prohibiting certain politically sensitive discussions. When Theresa May was asked if this is the kind of regulation she is looking to introduce, she simply replied “let’s work with the companies.”
Charlie Smith, who runs Great Fire, an organisation which centres on circumventing the restrictions on China’s internet and helps provide citizens access to sites such as Google and The New York Times, told Global Comment what this kind of regulation would mean.
“First thing would be to tell non-UK internet companies that if they want to operate in the UK then they need to abide by local laws,” he said. “If they agree to that, they have to set up local entities. These entities would be responsible for censoring their own content in accordance with the law and establishing a team to oversee and censor user-generated content. Failure to follow the law will result in jail time for company executives. If non-UK companies do not agree to this, then their websites will be blocked in the UK. The UK will then place heavy restrictions on the use of circumvention tools and will block and disrupt most of them. Local employees of circumvention tool providers may be placed in jail.”
These measures would come at a great cost to British taxpayers and would likely have no impact on a terrorist group’s ability to operate. Mr Smith said that since the implementation of regulation in China there have been no known examples of terrorism or extremism being prevented. “There are no examples that I can point to,” he said. “In fact, the Chinese authorities took extreme measures in some parts of the country and shut down the internet completely when they felt that they did not have adequate control over it. These actions upset the entire society, not just groups that the authorities were targeting.”
While the UK government is using extremism to justify implementing internet regulation, their real motive is far more likely to be control of political dissent and censorship. It is already apparent based on recent policies that the government’s primary goal is not fighting extremism. In 2014, under David Cameron, the Conservative government implemented a censorship measure that had no relationship at all to combating terrorism, instead it was one of the strictest restrains on pornography in the west.
Mr Cameron said certain forms of legal pornography was “corrupting childhood” and “normalising sexual violence against women” and so he implemented a policy which requires internet service providers to prohibit citizens from accessing certain websites by default. They are now required to ‘opt-in’. But pornography is not the only thing being blocked. In 2013, the New Statesman magazine reported that O2 were blocking the Childline and Refuge websites and BT was blocking gay and lesbian content.
And in July 2013 the Open Rights Group said the UK was “sleep walking into censorship”. It found that the ‘opt-in’ filters would include content far beyond pornography, such as smoking, alcohol, web forums, eating disorders and web blocking circumvention tools. Mrs May is likely to take this further based on her accusations that technology firms, including YouTube and Facebook, have been dragging their feet and failing to remove extremist material.
The problem is also the definition of ‘extremist’ material; who decides on what that term means? In China many citizens are oblivious to the fact their government is oppressing the Tibetan community because information is censored and Tibetans are deemed ‘separatists’. Thousands of Tibetans have been arbitrarily detained and tortured for ‘crimes’ such as speaking about political matters or owning a photograph of the Dalai Lama, a person China effectively sees as an extremist.
If the British government were to be given the same legal ability to regulate, then who is to say that certain news stories which may harm the party politically will not be ‘regulated’. For example, reports of Britain’s massive weapons sales fueling the conflict in Yemen, causing the death of thousands of civilians and leading to the world’s worst cholera outbreak, could be deemed ‘extremist’ material because it could harm the government’s agenda. The same goes for any of Britain’s deepened relations with some of the world’s repressive regimes including Bahrain, Israel, Uzbekistan and Turkey.
There is also the question of when would it end. If regulation is brought in to combat extremism when could that battle ever be over? How is it possible to ever say extreme views have been eliminated from society? Instead these measures would be permanent.
Mr Smith added: “Again, if you take China as an example, the authorities claim that everyone is happy in all regions in China yet information restrictions must remain in place to maintain this stability. So, no, these restrictions would likely last for a long time and would be helped along if UK citizens just accepted these changes as the ‘new normal’.”
Even the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, has stated: “We do not live in China, where the internet simply goes dark for millions when government so decides. Our democratic society cannot be treated that way.” The Conservative government has already developed the most intrusive surveillance apparatus of any democracy on the planet in the form of the Investigatory Powers Bill or Snoopers Charter.
And Mrs May has said she is willing to rip up human rights law, a comment the UN human rights chief called a “gift” to every despot who “shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism” If policies such as these were to be combined with the regulation and censorship of the internet, then how much longer can the country truly be regarded a democratic society and not a veiled totalitarian state?
Suppression of freedom of speech and control of information is a hallmark of a totalitarian government in order to enforce the government’s view of reality and this is often implemented under the pretext of national security and defence. Keeping citizens safe should always be a priority for a government and the battle against extremist ideologies is a complicated and challenging problem that today’s world faces. But censorship, state control, and the destruction of human rights is not only not the way to achieve it but, as history has shown, it may lead to something far more dangerous.
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour party, gave a speech which was praised by many but demonised by the state, whose policies it threatened. Rather than blame the internet, Mr Corbyn connected the cause of terrorism to the west’s continual and dangerous regime change attempts abroad.
He said: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home. That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions. But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism. Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.”
Just a thought, if a second referendum is called on the eu it'll need three questions:
1. Accept deal and leave.
2. Reject deal and leave.
3. Reject deal and stay.
I don't know if it'll be possible to frame it this way but it's the only fair solution I see. I don't want the (possibly deliberately) crap deal they'll come up with to be used as an excuse to stop Brexit and carry on being members of the EU.
That seems like the most transparent way of doing it, although you'd have to define what leaving while rejecting the deal would mean. Presumably WTO rules?
Future War Cultist wrote: Just a thought, if a second referendum is called on the eu it'll need three questions:
1. Accept deal and leave.
2. Reject deal and leave.
3. Reject deal and stay.
I don't know if it'll be possible to frame it this way but it's the only fair solution I see. I don't want the (possibly deliberately) crap deal they'll come up with to be used as an excuse to stop Brexit and carry on being members of the EU.
This has been suggested already several times, so I'm glad to see we are bringing you round to our way of thinking!
The other thing that would be needed is an *independent* assessment of each of the options showing the risks, costs, benefits, disadvantages of each of the options. This would be instead of the politicians who have their own interest at heart making up any old bull gak as slogans (e.g. £350m a week for the NHS, WWIII will start tomorrow etc). This way the public have an independent way of challenging what tripe the MPs are saying.
In other news NHS nursing is showing even more of a problem in the future. UCAS applications to nursing courses have dropped 19% in a year...(4% over all courses).
Well if a second referendum is forced, I would at least like the option to reaffirm my original choice.
And I'll say this, going back on it now will have severe consequences. No doubt the eu would require us to adopt the euro and join Schengen as conditions for return. And more money and more control too.
A year on I am still deeply worried and pessimistic about the prospects of Brexit.
The Leave campaign hasn't managed to offer anything positive and concrete. It is a deeply gloomy prospect compared to the obvious significant problems and disadvantages of Brexit in the economic and diplomatic spheres.
At least I can pretty easily emigrate to Japan if it all goes down the pan.
Well if a second referendum is forced, I would at least like the option to reaffirm my original choice.
And I'll say this, going back on it now will have severe consequences. No doubt the eu would require us to adopt the euro and join Schengen as conditions for return. And more money and more control too.
We've not left yet, so there'd be no room for renegotiation at that point.
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.
We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.
Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.
It's not about laws. Where has the EU stated that EU laws would apply in Britain? All the EU literature refers to individual rights.
It's about guaranteeing previously acquired rights. UK citizens living in the EU can appeal to a supranational court with a proven record of dictating against member states in individual rights issues.
EU citizens in the UK can appeal to whom? If the ECJ hits too close to May sovereignty red lines then the ECHR will do. Unless the UK wants to pull out of there as well.
Back on a related track, I've been thinking a lot about Sovereignty and I"ve tried to crystallise my thought.
I don't think sovereignty is as powerful a political tool as might be thought. I think there are forces in the world that are a lot more influential than national sovereignty, such as cultural change, and scientific advances, and economic factors.
To the extent that sovereignty is useful, I don't think it being concentrated in the hands of the government at Westminster is a very good thing.
Firstly, the House of Lords and FPTP makes Westminster a lot less democratic or representative than it should be.
Secondly, Westminster governments have made many incompetent choices over the years.
Thirdly, the UK is an increasingly federal-leaning organisation, and respect must be paid to the political situation of all the nations including England.
On the flip side of this coin, I am not so worried about sharing a degree of sovereignty with the EU. It is a democratic organisation within which we had a considerable leadership role and important allies.
Because of the veto system, and the need to get agreement of all the member nations, the EU has no way to force any single member to do something it really doesn't want to do.
Lastly, I think a supra-national authority such as the ECHR or the ECJ has an important role in taking legal decisions that are liable to be corrupted by regional politics at a lower level.
On balance I simply am not convinced that regaining sovereignty is worth all the problems we will encounter on the way.
I disagree. Sovereignty has been the building block of this island for centuries. Good men and women have fought and died to preserve it and is should not be squandered so cheaply.
For me, Brexit was never about economics, the ultimate question was this: who runs Britain? The British people or Brussels?
You can rightfully say that our political class did everything by the book when they took us into the EU, and it's true, but it was done by stealth, by gradualism, the frog in boiling water.
From the beginning of human civilization, there has been bureaucracy and it's a universal constant that bureaucracy expands and expands and takes and takes.
It happened to the Romans and it's happening to the EU - it's the nature of the beast.
As a student of American history, it's amazing to chart the growth of the Federal government from the 1780s to the present day. Yes, there are mitigating factors like population growth and more complex technology that needs regulated, but the Americans have spawned a monster that is probably impossible to slay now, without another revolution.
And so it is with Brussels. It started off with a coal and steel pact, then a common market, then a full blown EU, and now it's talking about an EU army , foreign policy, and so on...
Where does it end?
God yes, the UK has its problems, and if it were up to me, the Lords would be swept away tomorrow and a federal system implemented, but these are UK internal problems for the British people to change, should they choose to do so and it's far easier for the British people to change their own nation than a EU of 27 other nations...
This creeping centralisation of the Brussels bureaucracy and its consolidation of power, is something to be feared. I for one am very glad we got out whilst we could.
Oh, I forgot to mention that my second referendum proposal has a flaw; what happens if the remain option wins the single biggest share of the votes (49% for example) yet the combined total of the two remain options exceeds it (51%, split 27/24 for example). We would remain in the eu despite a bigger number of people wanting out.
So to counter that, I'd say that in order for remain to win it must beat the other two options combined. In other words, it as to achieve at least 51% of the total vote. At least then the majority choice wins out despite compromises. And for the record, this is why I think the whole hard Brexit soft Brexit thing is just a plot to stop it happening or to water it down as much as possible.
Hopefully this won't be too complicated to figure out. And this would only be in the chance that a second referendum becomes impossible to avoid. These conditions would be the only ones I'll accept.
Oh, I forgot to mention that my second referendum proposal has a flaw; what happens if the remain option wins the single biggest share of the votes (49% for example) yet the combined total of the two remain options exceeds it (51%, split 27/24 for example). We would remain in the eu despite a bigger number of people wanting out.
So to counter that, I'd say that in order for remain to win it must beat the other two options combined. In other words, it as to achieve at least 51% of the total vote. At least then the majority choice wins out despite compromises. And for the record, this is why I think the whole hard Brexit soft Brexit thing is just a plot to stop it happening or to water it down as much as possible.
Hopefully this won't be too complicated to figure out. And this would only be in the chance that a second referendum becomes impossible to avoid. These conditions would be the only ones I'll accept.
People might not believe me on this, but I love Europe: the history, the culture, the people. I've been there many times and hopefully I shall visit many times in the future.
I'm not 100% anti-EU. It has done some good things, and I don't doubt the ethos behind it and the drive to preserve peace in Europe. It's a very noble goal.
Unfortunately, it has been badly executed, and from where I'm sitting, it does not like it could change, even if it wanted too.
Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.
To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.
Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.
It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
Post-War pragmatism to give hope to the peoples of Eastern Europe languishing under the iron fist of Stalin.
As for your comment about emotion, good politics has always been about emotionalism - it's the driving force of politics.
I cite Patrick Henry's stirring speech to the rebels, Gandhi's attacks on the British Empire, and even our own Harold Wilson (The Labour party is a moral crusade or it is nothing) as evidence, and there are countless more examples.
Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.
Kilkrazy wrote: Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.
To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.
Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.
It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.
Kilkrazy wrote: Time change. Churchill also wanted to keep the Empire. That didn't work out so well.
Wow, thats a pretty quick change of tune, in the space of 3 posts you went from 'even Churchill wants it - so you should too' to 'well churchill was proven wrong - so you shouldn't listen to him'
Kilkrazy wrote: Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.
To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.
Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.
It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.
Kilkrazy wrote: Time change. Churchill also wanted to keep the Empire. That didn't work out so well.
Wow, thats a pretty quick change of tune, in the space of 3 posts you went from 'even Churchill wants it - so you should too' to 'well churchill was proven wrong - so you shouldn't listen to him'
It's possible to be right in one situation and wrong in another related one.
Churchill fought the Second World War to help preserve the Empire, which of course ultimately failed. In the context of 1946, though, when Britain still had an empire, it must have seemed a good concept for the three powers in the world to be the USA, USE and the British Empire. That isn't to say that Churchill would have opposed the UK joining the EU when the circumstances changed. See this interesting piece by Edward Heath.
I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.
Future War Cultist wrote: Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?
Future War Cultist wrote: Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?
In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."
..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?
weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?
So, you're saying that back in the 70s everyone, including the DM, knew that the EEC, and the burgeoning EU, was a step towards political union and not just a trade agreement?
How interesting that one of the assertions of the Leave campaign turns out to be a fabrication.
Future War Cultist wrote: Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?
In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."
Future War Cultist wrote: Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?
In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."
Yeah, sounds like fuzzy bs to me too. Unless they're referring to tea. We do great tea.
Some people may like to think that nothing ever good happened until the EU came along to 'save us', but I prefer the can do approach.
Yesterday, I read a newspaper article about how human rights in the UK would suffer because we're leaving the EU...
Because nobody in the UK ever stood up and fought for anything. They sat around for years waiting for the EU to be invented.
Suffragettes never marched. Levellers and Diggers never died, and of course, the Labour party and the Trade Union movement never fought for the 10 hour day, or sick pay, or holiday pay, or better working conditions, same sex relationships weren't decriminalised, and the NHS wasn't created in the 1940s, because the EEC/EU never existed then...
And let's not forget that the EU has stopped any war from ever happening in Europe again. The Yugoslav civil war never happened. It was a figment of the imagination.
Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.
Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.
A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.
Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.
A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.
And I stand by it. It reminded me of those revisionist histories that claim the Battle of The Somme wasn't that bad because 'only' 60,000 men were killed or wounded on day 1, and not 65,000 as originally thought...
Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.
A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.
And I stand by it.
I'm starting to see how "tired of experts" came about...
"The facts" or "no Eggheads". You can have one, pick one.
Future War Cultist wrote: I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.
The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.
Yes, it does. Sure, the countries joined voluntarily (usually for the money) but as time goes on the eu assumes more and more control over them and then starts telling them what to do. Look what it's doing to Greece over its finances, or Eastern Europe over migrants.
Future War Cultist wrote: I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.
The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.
There are two Elephants in the room, their names are Italy and Greece.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.
If the destruction of the EU were the only way for Britain to participate then I would prefer for Britain to get and stay out of the EU. I like the benefits we (overall, not just Germany) get from the EU even if certain things could be done better (sometimes much better). And no, the Greece deal and the whole austerity programme after the 2008 recession was not good (that was a complete policy failure around most of the world) but burning down the whole house and rebuilding it instead of repairing the bits that don't work is just a colossally bad idea and such a waste of resources. Pushing some paperwork one government abstraction upwards is a small price to pay for a better integration and collaboration.
The EU makes trade inside the EU easier and gives all members negotiation power when it comes to deals with countries outside the EU so smaller countries don't get completely fethed over because they would be powerless if they were alone. Culturally I haven't seen any homogenisation and the only thing that really threatening the individuality of regions/states/countries is rather globalism as pushed by capitalism so that we all get a McDonalds every few kilometres. The EU itself is trying to be a helpful force when it comes to not diluting a region's culture, heritage, and specific products.
The Commission's role is based on Article 3.3 of the Lisbon Treaty which states: “The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and [...] ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced”.
I've yet to see Prussians/French/Scandinavians invading Munich and ransacking the Oktoberfest or somebody forcing us to drink Kölsch, and in return they can do their own thing at home as they like. The same goes for all the specialty meats, cheeses, wines, beers, clothes, and other products from all over Europe that get protected by the EU against copycats. The economic integration of the EU just makes it easier for people to travel and experience all the regional differences. The EU doesn't force anybody into some ominous EU "cultural norm" where we speak Esperanto and our history gets erased for the greater good (or similar fairy tales).
The UK had to go begging cap in hand to the IMF in the mid-70s because the economy had gone to gak.
If you look at a country's economy collapsing due to its own internal mistakes, followed by some organisation bailing it out and requiring some reforms as "taking control and dictating" that should be resisted at all costs, then you are going to see some ugly scenes around the world.
..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?
weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?
You old cynic
Cynical would be thinking that one of the main reasons that certain individuals and/or groups... say a newspaper for example, were a bit worried about certain changes the EU want to introduce ...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Some people may like to think that nothing ever good happened until the EU came along to 'save us', but I prefer the can do approach.
Yesterday, I read a newspaper article about how human rights in the UK would suffer because we're leaving the EU...
Because nobody in the UK ever stood up and fought for anything. They sat around for years waiting for the EU to be invented.
Suffragettes never marched. Levellers and Diggers never died, and of course, the Labour party and the Trade Union movement never fought for the 10 hour day, or sick pay, or holiday pay, or better working conditions, same sex relationships weren't decriminalised, and the NHS wasn't created in the 1940s, because the EEC/EU never existed then...
This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now. The question was (and is) all about where we'd be best placed to maintain and expand on these things in the future. We've had decades of governments frequently trying to erode civil rights and a current government who explicitly want to ditch human rights in favour of an as-yet opaque charter. I'm far more confident in the EU upholding these rights than British governments left to their own devices.
And let's not forget that the EU has stopped any war from ever happening in Europe again. The Yugoslav civil war never happened. It was a figment of the imagination.
Does anyone really try and argue that the EU has prevented all war in Europe, or just that it has prevented war between its member states, which was all the rage for the previous, what, 1500 years?
Future War Cultist wrote: I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.
The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.
There are two Elephants in the room, their names are Italy and Greece.
And Greece has had massive loans from the EU, which they took of their own free will, that came with conditions of getting their economies and debt under control. It's not unreasonable for those of us who leant the Greeks the money to expect them to use it to sort out their economy so that further loans were not required.
I'm not sure what you mean by Italy being controlled or dictated to by the rest of us though. I know their economy is in a mess, but I don't remember any dictat from Brussels? Perhaps you could refresh my memory, I could be mistaken.
Do we need new laws? It's illegal to issue threats, make libels and so on. Can't those be enforced?
This looks like a social problem, not a legal one.
A good start would be making more complaints to the press commission about the language and imagery used in the national press by the low brow tabloids. That creates an environment where it becomes acceptable for people to react on their feels with little analysis or information and then turn to spit vitriol at perceived "enemies of the people".
Difficult to enforce in law, so we should try to create an environment where these media outlets simply fail or become financially unviable. How to do that though is also extremely difficult when people continue to buy them because they re-enforce their own beliefs and make them feel warm and fuzzy, in an angry and unpleasant way.
Personally I think that if you're going into politics, it's probably going to be a fact of life that dickheads are going to abuse you. You could employ some poor sap to filter out the abuse for you, before addressing the non-trolls and real issues. Besides, if all they have left is personal attacks, they've lost the argument. I'd bask in the hatred, and know that if I'm pissing these low lives off, I'm definitely on the right track.
Does anyone really try and argue that the EU has prevented all war in Europe, or just that it has prevented war between its member states, which was all the rage for the previous, what, 1500 years?
Yeah, that's a common Eurosceptic point, the whatabout the Balkans. Forgetting that it was a tipping point for EU common foreign policy (basically nonexistent at the time).
In case case, look at Slovenia and Croatia now, both in the EU, and one of the conditions for entry was that they had to solve a border dispute dating back to their independence, which happened quickly and painlessly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.
You had that. It was called the EFTA and you left them for the EU once it seemed clear it couldn't attract more than a few peripheral countries.
Do we need new laws? It's illegal to issue threats, make libels and so on. Can't those be enforced?
This looks like a social problem, not a legal one.
This has been occurring in British politics for hundreds of years. Lloyd George famously had to escape across walls and gardens when a political rally went horribly wrong during the dreadnought crisis.
Winston Churchill, the hero of World War Two, was famously ran out of London's east end during the 1945 campaign by a mob chanting for Labour and NHS.
Naturally, genuine threats and incitement to violence need to be tackled, but there is already laws for this kinda thing. The problem with this kind of things is that it's often a slippery slope.
We have genuine abuse that needs to be tackled, and then it suddenly morphs into people disagree with me, that's abuse. Shut these people up etc etc
Future War Cultist wrote: Social media has made it worse but there will be some who want to use any old excuse to expand the law.
Forget that - it's a drop in the ocean compared to the real issue: The Great Repeal bill.
I've been looking over the influence that 40 years on EU law has had on British laws, regulations, trade, culture etc etc
and holy horsegak, what i saw scared the gak out of me!
The tentacles, this hydra of an out of control Brussels bureaucracy has infiltrated Britain from top to bottom. It's a clear and present danger to our civil liberties and democracy, almost squeezing the life out of parliamentary sovereignty.
I knew it would be a tough task rolling back 40 years of EU law, but God Almighty, I didn't realize how tough it would be. To use a classic metaphor, it's an Augean stables that needs to be cleansed.
It's insidious and we've had a narrow escape.
The worst part though is that it was all done by the book, by a political class that bit by bit, sold this country down the river, and they're still fighting to try and reverse Brexit.
This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now. The question was (and is) all about where we'd be best placed to maintain and expand on these things in the future. We've had decades of governments frequently trying to erode civil rights and a current government who explicitly want to ditch human rights in favour of an as-yet opaque charter. I'm far more confident in the EU upholding these rights than British governments left to their own devices.
I think there is a trend amongst those who tend to be trying to build or promote a new world order (in a generic, non-illuminati sense) to disparage the achievements of what came before, or to handwave it away as the past, and therefore irrelevant. Practically every revolutionary movement does it as a matter of course.
The only reason any country functions the way it does is not because of the law or the government, but the culture and people within it. Transplant any European system to the majority of locations within Africa and it ends up mired in corruption within a week, for example. Looking at any individual government for things such as human rights is like focusing on a particular claw (an action) of a specific bird (the government) on one tree (in a given moment) in a forest (everything else to do with the subject).
Accordingly, to bring it back to the moment, 'Look at the things we've done' isn't so much a 'chestbeating jingoist' thing to do as it is examining the culture which you belong to and the trend of how that culture has evolved historically.
The social fabric of Britain is a fascinating one and thoroughly unique, as indeed, all societies are. And as a culture, we're enraptured by preserving our past. Those who see it as 'thinking we're still a colonial power' completely miss the wider significance of history to the British. We not only go out of our way to preserve items of bizare historical significance on a regular basis, we deliberately surround ourselves with them. We expose our children to them on a regular basis on days out to the museum/castle/stately home, we form literally tens of thousands of societies dedicated to preserving some obscure aspect of knowledge, artifacts, and locations, and our popular culture is embedded with references to it.
To the British, the past is living and breathing all around us. And items such as human rights and 'fairness' have, I think, become intrinsically interwoven with it as a result of many events buried within that history. The pendulum swings one way and back on a regular basis when it comes to politics and governmental powers, and the EU is only featured in a few of the most recent markings of our societal tapestry.
Accordingly, I believe those who fear our sudden tipping into a totalitarian state devoid of human rights once we leave the EU will be proven quite wrong.
If anybody drives, flies, or trains it from the top of Britain to the bottom of Britain, what do you see?
Castles, Hadrian's wall, Stonehenge, the birthplace of the industrial revolution. In any British city, you'll see grand buildings that were built with the money made from empire. Head over to Whitehall in London, and you'll see buildings where the fate of the world was decided at one point i.e the partition of India, the creation of the modern day middle east, and various other nations that were conquired or finally won their deserved history.
Hop over to the British museum and you'll see the artifacts from Ancient Egypt to the Babylonians and so on...
You look at the modern world, and half of it was influenced by Britain. Look across at the USA, the latest superpower, and you see a country that speaks a language from the British isles, and who's founding history, and constitution, was heavily influenced by this same, small island...
That's not to whitewash the evils of empire. Never. But when you're surrounded by 40 centuries of history in your own nation, and see a lot of the world also influenced by your nation, it's hard not to be affected by that.
In many respects, this nation was built with the toil and sacrifice of heroes and giants. I don't think it should be discarded so lightly.
Britain is not unique in history or culture, but people take pride in some aspects our history as Ketara rightly points out.
The Khmer Rouge advocated the year zero approach to history, and we all know how that turned out
You look at the modern world, and half of it was influenced by Britain.
I'm not even talking about empire particularly. You can go around an exhibition of the Pitman Painters, wander across to a medieval fete and quaff some mead in full costume, join the local club dedicated to historical entomology. I see it all the time when I'm over at the National Maritime Museum, hordes of hoary old men enthralling teenagers will tales relating to yachting and sailing and the one that got away.
Our culture is utterly obsessed with the past (in a general sense) to a degree like no other culture I'm aware of. I think it ties into another aspect, that of the eternal British hobbyist. It means people are constantly pursuing small projects of interest to them, and more often than not, it ends up involving some historical aspect. I bought a book the other day on munitions manufacturers that was written by a man because he was a cartridge collector and wanted to pin down some stuff about the companies. Yachting? You buy books on famous past yachts and go see them when on holiday. Gardening? Botany has a rich historical tradition and plenty of locations like Kew Gardens.
I could go on forever, but the point I'm trying to make is that as a society, the British are utterly enamoured with and lost to the past. But what's often missed is that the 'past' is more than just 'Empire', in the same way history is more than just battles, governments, and politicians. Just to seize on an example derived from one of those, look at the WW1 war memorials. In no other country involved in those conflicts does such a massive quantity of memorials exist of different types across such a diverse geography.
British cultural indoctrination accordingly infects the British with a deep seated respect for the past, and for where they come from. It's one of the reasons that Britain as a whole has proven exceedingly resistant to being influenced by the various political upheavals which have rocked the world. Much like how Japanese culture appropriates and then 'Japanifies' foreign concepts and institutions, the British tend to gradually absorb them and then modify them considerably to fit within an existing British framework.
The result however, is that the reason we won't end up suddenly sliding into facism is because people like nfe, me, and many others exist who have been raised within that framework. And that framework is exceedingly heavily against authoritarianism, on every level. Generations of fighting against the likes of Napoleon and Hitler have scarred British cultural history with a deep aversion to dictatorial states and values. We've brainwashed ourselves into culturally valuing certain concepts (human rights strongly amongst them) as part of being 'British'. It's a well documented historical phenomena.
The result is that generally speaking, there's just too many people in this country who frown when the binman dares to reject our rubbish for not being properly sorted, or a council official tells you off for smoking in the wrong place. We don't, as a rule of thumb, like being told what to do. Generations of Europeans have marvelled at the fact we treat ID cards as some sort of facist tyranny when they're the norm over the river.
Doubtless new laws will be passed which infringe upon liberties. It's what governments do, most often unthinkingly. But that's been a trend for the last hundred and fifty years. What ends up happening is that we hassle our politicians to modify laws until they're more reasonable, and if they refuse, we vote them out and replace them with others who will. It's a neverending developmental process. But the fact it exists reassures me that when it comes to human rights? We'll be alright, inside or outside of Europe.
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
All good points well argued, Ketara, but you overlooked the influence of class system in this nation over the centuries.
In all my travels, I've never met a country so beholden to the class system and the old school tie as Britain.
I cringe when I see people doffing their caps to the Royal family, and it fills me with sadness too when I look back on how many talented people never got on because they didn't go to the right school or know the right people.
And it makes my blood boil when I see incompetent buffoons like Bojo and Call Me Dave, people that are not worth a bucket of horsegak, being propelled to high office by dint of going to the right schools and knowing the right people
It's one of the very very few things I despise this nation for.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
You very explicitly said that the past was 'entirely distinct' from the present, and implied that it had nothing to do with how British rights and values would evolve in the future. To which I've quite comprehensively disagreed, on the basis that the 'past' affects British cultural makeup to a very considerable degree, which in turn influences how Britain will develop in the future. Cultures are not tabula rasa, how they react and respond to events is very firmly based upon their perceived background.
If you meant something else, now would be the time to elucidate further on precisely what you intended to say. Communication is a two way street, after all.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
Only to the same degree that everyone else with access to an education is.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
You need to find some evidence to support this strawman.
People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.
People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.
You yourself implied such fears previously. You know, for someone doing a historically based thesis, you seem remarkably indifferent to the relevancy it has on modern day culture and institutions.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.
I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.
The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.
One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.
People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.
You yourself implied such fears previously.
Err, yes. I did. I'm not sure what point you're making?
you seem remarkably indifferent to the relevancy it has on modern day culture and institutions.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.
I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.
The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.
One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.
Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.
They also forget that Europe is not the centre of the world anymore - we threw that away in 1914 and 1939. The days of Europeans drawing lines on the map to carve up Africa and other places are long gone.
The centre of power has shifted across the Atlantic to a place I believe you're very familiar with and there is also a rising power on the other side of the world. Something to do with dragons and Communism....
Europe will never start global conflicts ever again IMO, becuase quite honestly, they do not have the means or the will.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.
I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.
The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.
One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.
Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.
And when the EU starts talking about creating a common defense policy it's overreaching. Please.
nfe wrote: Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.
I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).
That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.
True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.
I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.
No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc
I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.
I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.
The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.
One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.
Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.
Not overlooking that at all, hence why I added the caveat about "along with other things". Nothing works in a vacuum, these are all systems with lots of interlocking parts. NATO and the US had a lot to do with that as well, no doubt, as other things did and do too, but the EU does play an important role.
They also forget that Europe is not the centre of the world anymore - we threw that away in 1914 and 1939. The days of Europeans drawing lines on the map to carve up Africa and other places are long gone.
The centre of power has shifted across the Atlantic to a place I believe you're very familiar with and there is also a rising power on the other side of the world. Something to do with dragons and Communism....
Sure, Europe isn't the center of the world, but that hasn't stopped places from descending into barbarous conflict before, nor were concerns over maps in Africa necessarily relevant to all of Europe's conflicts over the last couple hundred years.
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
Europe will never start global conflicts ever again IMO, becuase quite honestly, they do not have the means or the will.
Never underestimate the power of people to do something stupid, they will prove you wrong every time.
That said, we needn't talk of global war, a conflict isolated solely within Europe could still kill horrific numbers of people. The Balkan wars managed to kill six digits worth of people in a relatively isolated and small corner of Europe in a relatively small scale conflict.
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.
As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.
Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.
As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.
Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.
At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.
As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.
Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.
At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.
But that assumes that the 'big boys' the USAs, The Chinas, The EUs of this world are perfect utopias that run like clockwork. They're not and they don't.
The USA has just elected a complete idiot as its head of state. China is riven with corruption and demographic problems, and the EU is under assault from popular uprisings and a major migration crisis and it's losing one of its most important members. .
Why do we always assume that those three will always be in positions of global influence? Human agency shapes events. Revolutions happen, technology changes things, and of course, who knows what climate change will do?
Err, yes. I did. I'm not sure what point you're making?
I'm not particularly. The shift from first to third person just amused me.
I said the exact opposite above.
..............Errrrr.
This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now.
If you're indicating statements like the above as you acknowledging the impact of history on the future direction of contemporary people and institutions? You may want to try outlining what you're saying a little better, because what you appear to be saying is that it actually:
still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward.
to steal a quote from you.
Out of curiosity, how much historical training/of what sort do they actually give you whilst doing an archaeology thesis? I remember doing a few archaeology modules many moons ago when I was an undergrad, and it all seemed geared far more towards working with primary sources than refining it afterwards or fiddling with the epistemological angles. Is that consistent at a postgraduate level or does it change?
At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.
What a strange idea. I don't recall anyone doing anything sufficiently strongarm you'd describe it as 'dominating' South Africa or Japan lately. Yet they still run their own countries without being members of the EU.
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.
As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.
Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.
At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.
But that assumes that the 'big boys' the USAs, The Chinas, The EUs of this world are perfect utopias that run like clockwork. They're not and they don't.
Nobody claims they run like clockwork, but they don't need to assume they do either. The US certainly doesn't work like clockwork, and we throw our weight around and bully other people all the time in a very wide variety of ways. The British Empire certainly didn't run like clockwork, but was able to bully lots of people around for quite some time.
Why do we always assume that those three will always be in positions of global influence? Human agency shapes events. Revolutions happen, technology changes things, and of course, who knows what climate change will do?
I think it's fair to assume that, barring some major event that nobody can foresee, such powers will be in positions of global influence for any relevant span of future time that can possibly be planned for by human beings living today, and if they aren't, something else will likely come along to fill that gap in a similar manner. I can get run over by a bus and killed tomorrow or win the lottery, both are entirely possible, but I'm not going to expect or plan on either.
At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.
What a strange idea. I don't recall anyone doing anything sufficiently strongarm you'd describe it as 'dominating' South Africa or Japan lately. Yet they still run their own countries without being members of the EU.
They are, however, a member of the BRICS/signatory to a bunch of trade deals. I can concede that "dominate" was too strong of a term, however. The underlying point still stands: you're never going to have that illusory "sovereignty", there's always going to be limitations to what you can and can't do.
They are, however, a member of the BRICS/signatory to a bunch of trade deals. I can concede that "dominate" was too strong of a term, however. The underlying point still stands: you're never going to have that illusory "sovereignty", there's always going to be limitations to what you can and can't do.
Oh, certainly. Kim Jong Un is unable to invade Iceland, despite his well known grudge against polar bears and line dancing. I'm not sure that means he's lacking in 'sovereignty' in North Korea, though.
I think we can both agree however, that being in the position of Japan to conclude a trade deal and being 1/28th of the EU's collective voice in concluding one are very different
though. Both have advantages and disadvantages. To bring in Vaktathi's quote from above:
Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?
It's of little use being one cog in a greater whole if doing so brings you less in the way of benefits specific to you in a trade deal than being able to negotiate independently would do. Being part of a free trade zone helps to equalise that equation to an extent, but it doesn't necessarily balance it. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that Britain is in a better position via trade outside Europe rather than in it, or even the other way around (that would be dumb, I've nowhere near enough data to form an opinion worth having on the matter). I'm simply saying that being part of a larger whole does not automatically result in being in a better position.
I think that's something that is applied more generally. If I tried to shove the USA, China, and Russia into a mutual political arrangement like the EU, it would be violated before the ink was dry. Too many differences. What's more, whatever apparatus used to govern that many people would necessarily either be unwieldy and ineffectual, or essentially autocratic. Bigger does not necessarily equal better. There has to be a commonality of purpose and clearly defined legal responsibilities and levels of representation. What's more, those have to be accepted by everyone as being adequate, or the whole thing falls apart.
This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now.
If you're indicating statements like the above as you acknowledging the impact of history on the future direction of contemporary people and institutions? You may want to try outlining what you're saying a little better, because what you appear to be saying is that it actually:
still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward.
to steal a quote from you.
You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future. Clearly founding the NHS and being key to establishment of a human rights charter are components of how the UK sees itself, for instance, but that doesn't in any way mean that UK governments will strive to stand up for universal free healthcare or human rights, which is what DINLT was implying in the post to which the above was a response.
Out of curiosity, how much historical training/of what sort do they actually give you whilst doing an archaeology thesis? I remember doing a few archaeology modules many moons ago when I was an undergrad, and it all seemed geared far more towards working with primary sources than refining it afterwards or fiddling with the epistemological angles. Is that consistent at a postgraduate level or does it change
I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.
As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.
You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future.
Unless one is a determinist, Y is an entirely unknowable outcome to begin with in a strict sense. Accoridngly, I'm not certain it needs stating in relation specifically to Brexit, anymoreso than it does in relation to the Scottish elections. The only reason to do so that I can perceive is if one was stating that X in the past having been achieved will have no relation to whether or not Y occurs in the future.
Which, as I have argued, and continue to argue, is not the case. I believe it has a very pertinent influence on whether or not Y will occur, due to the related impact and legacy of X occurring. So to speak. Consequently, I'm not quite seeing how you're cutting the metaphorical cheese here. Either you accept that X occurring does have an impact on whether or not Y will occur, or you don't. Could you clarify one way or the other please? A simple yes or no will do. Then I know whether or not I should be debating this!
I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.
As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.
That's very interesting. Historical methodology is distinct from sociological and anthropological, although as with all things at the upper levels of humanities, approaches and philosophers occasionally get borrowed in a rather variable pick and mix approach. Some historians don't even bother with the whole affair (being able to adopt a qualitative narrative approach is remarkably concealing). I can't say I read much archaeology, but I'd assumed that sufficient professional archaeologists write history books in their own right on their own fields that there'd be more of an overlap. Fascinating stuff indeed! I might have to go and see if I can poke some archaeologists for a more extended discussion on the subject. Thanks for the info.
On an economic level, Brexit is a bet that the UK can by itself forge better trade deals more quickly than the EU, and thereby replace the trade lost with the EU and hopefully gain more on top.
You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future.
Unless one is a determinist, Y is an entirely unknowable outcome to begin with in a strict sense. .
Indeed. It wasn't me making that fallacy.
Which, as I have argued, and continue to argue, is not the case. I believe it has a very pertinent influence on whether or not Y will occur, due to the related impact and legacy of X occurring. So to speak. Consequently, I'm not quite seeing how you're cutting the metaphorical cheese here. Either you accept that X occurring does have an impact on whether or not Y will occur, or you don't. Could you clarify one way or the other please? A simple yes or no will do. Then I know whether or not I should be debating this!
I have a problem with the term 'impact'. All events in the past inform all events in the future because they form how persons, both individually and collectively understand their world and their place in it. I don't aceppt they necesarily have any direct causal relationship. We're getting rather away from the point, though. I simply refuted DINLT's assertion that there was no reason to think that the UKs attitutdes towards human rights would regress because we had been prioneers in some great social achievements, because our governments have been actively working to do so.
I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.
As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.
That's very interesting. Historical methodology is distinct from sociological and anthropological, although as with all things at the upper levels of humanities, approaches and philosophers occasionally get borrowed in a rather variable pick and mix approach. Some historians don't even bother with the whole affair (being able to adopt a qualitative narrative approach is remarkably concealing). I can't say I read much archaeology, but I'd assumed that sufficient professional archaeologists write history books in their own right on their own fields that there'd be more of an overlap. Fascinating stuff indeed! I might have to go and see if I can poke some archaeologists for a more extended discussion on the subject. Thanks for the info.
Got you. Depending on the specific field, most academic archaeologists will be most familiar with historical criticism. There are certainly archaeologists out there writing history books, but usually about subjects for which most/all texts have exceedingy little to offer. You find most often archaeology is only employed in historical scholarship by historians with little grasp of archaeology as a discipline and it only gets used as a test of textual veracity outside of academic publications. Specifically archaeological popular texts tend to be either about prehistory or a specifically popular and sensationalised sub-field (The Archaeology of the Old Testament or whatever). Bit of a shame really, archaeology is innately interdisciplinary, our projects involve a whole range of specialists in different fields, most of us are pretty familiar in a whole range of diciplines (quite often teaching in several), and we're the only way anyone can know about the vast majority of experiences of the vast majority of people in the vast majority of periods, but to everyone else we're usually either a retrieval method or a means of doublechecking where Bannockburn actually was
Anyway, very off topic to UK politics (though it's usually drawn upon heavily when something's anniversary is coming!). Apologies, all.
It's of little use being one cog in a greater whole if doing so brings you less in the way of benefits specific to you in a trade deal than being able to negotiate independently would do. Being part of a free trade zone helps to equalise that equation to an extent, but it doesn't necessarily balance it. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that Britain is in a better position via trade outside Europe rather than in it, or even the other way around (that would be dumb, I've nowhere near enough data to form an opinion worth having on the matter). I'm simply saying that being part of a larger whole does not automatically result in being in a better position.
The pie will be bigger, though it might not be exactly the flavour you want.
However, and looking at previous FTAs between the EU and third countries they seem to favour precisely the kind of goods the UK excels at: vehicles (including aircraft and parts) and other machinery, pharma stuff and financial and consulting services.
Personally I think the UK is likely to do worse at trade outside the EU in the medium term, perhaps in the long term too.
It stands to reason that the UK by itself can be more agile in making agreements. Things might work out all right if we can quickly make deals with places like Brazil, Indonesia and India, that are growing rapidly. But it needs to be remembered that India and Brazil combined are smaller than Japan, whose just concluded deal with the EU we are backing out of.
When you look at world GDP, the USA, EU and China account for about 60% of it. There is a disadvantage of scale when dealing with larger economies and economic zones like the EU, North America and China.
The EU is a much larger market than the UK as well as having a wider range of goods and services to offer in return, and therefore is more attractive to trade partners. This offsets the disadvantage of being slower to form agreements.
None of this matters if your primary concern is sovereignty, though in my view sovereignty is not worth much if it can't help the people's standard of living. I believe that curbing immigration will also hit our economy.
The backstabbing of the Chancellor over the weekend confirms in my mind the suggestion that the cabinet is split between hardcore Brexiteers, who want maximum separation from the EU at any cost, and the closet Remainers, who want at least to make a deal that maximises our economic prospects.
The backstabbing of the Chancellor over the weekend confirms in my mind the suggestion that the cabinet is split between hardcore Brexiteers, who want maximum separation from the EU at any cost, and the closet Remainers, who want at least to make a deal that maximises our economic prospects.
Personally, I see it less in the context of the EU than that of the Tory succession. Remember who we're dealing with here. Their primary concern is to climb to the top of the pile.
At the moment, Davis appears to be the heir apparent, but he's untouchable. He's in charge of Brexit, meaning anything that sabotages him sabotages the entire Brexit project and Britain's immediate future. So the knives are unlikely to come out for him until Brexit is concluded. Hammond is number 2 at the moment though, which means he needs to be deposed/discredited over the next year or so. Then they can start doing the run up for Davis.
By they, I mean Bojo, Gove, Rudd, and Fox of course. I don't believe Hunt or Grayling have any real ambition in that direction, and nobody takes Leadsom seriously.
Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.
I think what will happen is that Brexit very likely will turn into a disaster one way or another and the leadership succession will depend on whether Davis manages to deflect the blame on to someone else.
This is where I think there is an unholy witches cauldron of conflicting ambitions. I don't think David favours a hard Brexit and we know that Hammond does not because it will feth up the economy big time. But Davis faces not only difficult negotiation with Barnier but also the Hard Brexiteers in the cabinet who don't seem to care about the economic implications, only about "sovereignty". From their angle, it doesn't matter if Davis fails to get a good settlement because the UK can exit the EU anyway with a bad one. Also, a lot of them probably don't believe a hard Brexit will all that much damage.
We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.
It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.
What does this actually mean? Why are we different, what are these dreams, what is our own task?? I've met plenty of people from around the world and, although anecdotal, I've never found anyone that has different dreams or desires for their country that are any different to someone from the UK. The principles are all the same. It implies that the UK is in someway special to the rest of the EU and that simply isn't the case. We are all the same at the general statistical level, there's no difference between one persons dream to another's. In effect these sort of statements are just emotional nonsense with no substance, it's like a bad rendition of "Reach for the stars" by s club 7.
Whirlwind wrote: We are all the same at the general statistical level.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? Because you could mean....well, anything really. From that we all statistically like to eat, to that we all statistically are likely to go to sleep once a day. Neither of which have much bearing on anything.
Not that I agree with the statement you're countering, but replacing one generalisation with another vague declaration isn't really an improvement.
What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.
Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.
Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.
he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.
Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....
.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.
Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.
Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.
he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.
Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....
.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.
Well said
I've said it before, but Tim Shipman's book about June 23rd, 'All out war,' is a bloody good read, and blows the lid on all the people involved: Dave, Osborne, Bojo etc etc
Gove comes across as the weasel I always suspected him to be. He's not to be trusted
Something we agree on. Also an indicator of Call Me Dave's spineless leadership.
When Gove came out as a Brexiteer he should have been instantly sacked as a minister of the Crown for going against official government policy. Instead Call Me Dave went, "Mew, mew mew, you can be a government minister and Brexiteer because demokrazi or something, wee, wee, wee..."
Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.
On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.
Whirlwind wrote: We are all the same at the general statistical level.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? Because you could mean....well, anything really. From that we all statistically like to eat, to that we all statistically are likely to go to sleep once a day. Neither of which have much bearing on anything.
Not that I agree with the statement you're countering, but replacing one generalisation with another vague declaration isn't really an improvement.
It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.
Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.
On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.
I think both points are related - we object to things like ID cards because we have right-leaning governments that usually seek to stretch powers and abuse things, resulting in things like huge CCTV coverage. A lot of Europe is a lot more wary about right-ish actions and are (presumably) better trusted to use the powers for what they need without trying to overstep into totalitarianism.
May is just the last in a long line of them, but seems to be the worst in terms of how little oversight she wants over her actions.
Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.
On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.
And this shows the point I was trying to make. Both of these come from a desire for a Country to be 'safe' at a general level, there is no difference here between the UK and Germany. The detail is different but the principles are the same.
Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).
Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.
Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.
he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.
Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....
.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.
I wouldn't count out Gove. No one would have given May a chance. We also have to remember that there will be a vote this time I think for the next leader. Boris I think has been shown to be enough of a clown not to be ever given a chance; Liam Fox is likely to have been tarnished by his previous actions giving his friends inside access. That probably leaves David Davis, Hammond on the soft Brexit side and Gove on the hard Brexit side. I would assume we will a soft and hard Brexit candidate get through to the last two as the two sides split. That will leave Tory members to vote and my understanding that this group is quite elderly and heavily anti-EU. That could then favour Gove being made PM and we will all be doomed....Gove also has one advantage that he has direct access to newslesspapers (which is perhaps Osborne though it was a good idea to try and get his own to try and combat this?).
Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).
And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.
Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).
And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.
Not to mention her governments endless need to go after our online hanky-panky
On the subject of current leaks, I don't see Gove being responsible. Why? Because he literally only just managed to eel his way back into Cabinet, and that was solely on May's good graces. He's a pariah in there at the moment, I don't see Bojo and co. wanting anything to do with him after their big public spat. Which indeed, will be why May brought him back. Much like how she resurrected Fox. It's standard Machiavellian tactics, because they're generally isolated and unliked, it makes them easier to control. 'I brought you back, I can put you back down again just as fast', and suchlike. That's usually only good for a certain time period, politicians build power bases and ally networks like a bird feathers its nest. The point remains though that it is unlikely to be Gove seriously hacking her off with extensive leaks when he's only been back five minutes thanks to her.
Likewise, we know it isn't Hammond (because it's about him). It's also unlikely to be Davis, purely because there's little gain for him right now in picking fights with the Chancellor. In a year or so, things might be different, but not right now. That leaves Bojo and all the other third rankers trying to clear him our of the way as part of the runup to seize leadership.
nfe wrote:And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.
I remain convinced that the internet surveillance measures are more down to old people not quite grasping it than any form of draconian facism. May is about 60, I personally don't know a single 60 year old woman who uses the net for anything but basic email, or understands anything about the technical workings of computers. Even assuming she knows five times as much as that (being PM and having access to detailed reports she no doubt briefly skims), I reckon for her, it's conceptually like letters and telephones. She thinks that if the government needs to take a peek/listen, it should be able to. Which was the prevailing intelligence philosophy during the Cold War (when she grew up). All she sees is that terrorists have a way of communicating the Government can't listen to and she's accountable when they successfully strike without being intercepted. So she automatically moves to try and clamp down/listen in.
I don't agree with it, but I can understand her likely motivation/perspective on the matter.
With regards to people talking about surveillance culture and the British meanwhile, it should be recognised that this is driven by society itself. The Government isn't exactly running around throwing up all the cameras, it tends to be the case that every shop puts a few up as standard, ATM's build them in as default, public services put them in so they can film any abuse for later prosecution, etc. Not quite the same as if they were a huge centrally controlled government run network (like say, ID cards). It's why nobody really comments much on it; because no-one is particularly to blame, nobody watches them unless there's a very specific need, and it virtually never gets misused despite the sheer quantity of cameras. Accordingly, nobody really feels that it's breaching their human rights (unless they're a severely affronted mugger in court about to be convicted).
It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.
Could I get a source on this? Genuinely interested, and wouldn't know where to look. I'm fascinated to know what kind of methodology one would try and use to compare entire cultures in such a fashion.
It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.
Could I get a source on this? Genuinely interested, and wouldn't know where to look. I'm fascinated to know what kind of methodology one would try and use to compare entire cultures in such a fashion.
OK, here's an example. The bottom plot shows countries attitudes to foreign aid aspects of the world we live in.
The important to thing to note is the overall trend. There are differences in the details (specific questions), but when you look at it statistically, there is a normal statistical distribution with similar trends across all the countries which can be easily be predicted with the median and the statistical deviation; in effect it just implies that statistics is the only thing at work rather than any special factor for a country. There are differences in peoples perception on individual items but they all show the overall general trend (which in this case is the use of foreign aid).
Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).
And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.
Not to mention her governments endless need to go after our online hanky-panky
They just want to stop poor people accessing it. They are obviously slowing their download times when they are parliament
Seriously though if they think this is going to stop teenagers looking at porn they are very much deluded. In fact I'd argue it's a dangerous thing to do because it simply forces any teenager where the hormones are running riot to search for such things in less secure areas where there are less controls. This puts them at more risk not less. It's almost like they live in some la la land that everyone suddenly comes of age at 16...You've also got to wonder how the UK government intends to control sites not in the UK.
What concerns me most is the precedent that the government believes it should now be peoples thought police.
The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.
Davis accidentally phoned Barnier to ask for support to get a good deal (he thought he was phoning Finland).
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU.
Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator.
Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.
So will they dishing out pay cuts round?
My first thought is it's just lip service and nothing will actually change other than a few higher profile names.
The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.
Kent County Council pays some of it's councillors more than the PM.
Yet Das Daily Heil and The Scum aren't getting their knickers in a twist over that.
Future War Cultist wrote: No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.
There is an argument that no-one anywhere at all should get more than say, £250,000.
I mean we can all point fingers at the BBC, but the fact is lots of people ranging from footballers to company executives to university vice-chancellors, not to mention bankers, are on massive pay. We know that if we admit it to ourselves. It's only the BBC that has been forced to publish it.
My wife's quite angry over the amount of money that Chris Evans gets, but having a go at him doesn't solve the overall problem
We have in some sense chosen to live in a society in which a small number of people get a very large amount of money.
I was surprised Claudia 'no discernible talent' Winkelman is the highest paid female presenter. But not terribly surprised that she's paid far less than Chris 'heyday long gone' Evans.
But, who has the more screen/air time in a given week?
Ms Winkelman seems to do The Great British Sewing Bee, and some Makover show is upcoming. Plus I think she still stotts about on Strictly Come Wasting The License Fee. Two hours of Radio on a Friday, and a two hour show on a Sunday, plus some cover work for other presenters.
Mr Evans? Heads up the flagship Radio 2 Breakfast show. 3 hours on-air, five days a week. So he's doing nearly four times the radio work. Plus assorted TV things (his wiki isn't as neatly laid out as Ms Winkelman).
Of course, there'll be show planning and stuff in addition to the on-air hours, but it seems that Mr Evans does indeed do far more work for the Beeb than Ms Winkelman. So it's not necessarily a gender based paygap there.
Future War Cultist wrote: No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.
There is an argument that no-one anywhere at all should get more than say, £250,000.
I mean we can all point fingers at the BBC, but the fact is lots of people ranging from footballers to company executives to university vice-chancellors, not to mention bankers, are on massive pay. We know that if we admit it to ourselves. It's only the BBC that has been forced to publish it.
My wife's quite angry over the amount of money that Chris Evans gets, but having a go at him doesn't solve the overall problem
We have in some sense chosen to live in a society in which a small number of people get a very large amount of money.
I'm all for changing that.
There is a lot of truth to this. The BBC are only trying to keep up with current prices people get paid for entertaining us. Sky, BT, Virgin, ITV almost certainly pay their top talent similar amounts of money. If BBC capped their wages to something sensible (lets say £50k) then anyone good would leave and you'd be left with the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Savage reading the news.
Really this is deflection from the real issue, which as stated, is that some people are paid well over the odds for what as an individual they really give back and that in effect greed is becoming more prevalent and status simply based on wealth generation. If you had a sensible tax regime that significantly increased (I'm of the opinion tax should be a cubic system) with the more money you earned then it would significantly discourage over paying as there was little benefit in doing so.
Pension age is being raised to 68, and that's people older than me. I fully expect to be told I have to work until 70 within the next 10 years.
Can you seriously imagine me teaching secondary pupils until I'm 70? Rather unlikely.
But of course the government know damn well people can't work into their late sixties in many jobs. It's the pension age that's being raised, you can stop work any time you like. All they want is for people to pay for their own unemployment for longer before the pension kicks in. Obviously for some, this will mean great hardship.
Future War Cultist wrote: No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.
Why not? Private sector jobs doing the same exact thing can pay many times that. You have to pay for quality, like any other origination. Besides, why should the PM get payed a lot? They don't need it. Even our president earns slightly less than $200K a year. It's not a job you are supposed to be in for the money.
Edit: especially if that job generates in revenue more than it's paid in salary (which being the BBC, I assume it does).
The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.
They're not public sector workers. They're employed by a business that is state-owned. Taxes don't fund the BBC and people should really stop getting carried away with what the 'taxpayer' thinks. People that pay for the BBC service pay for the BBC's employees. I got a TV license two weeks ago. I'm a taxpayer (well, actually I'm exempt just now, but that's besides the point!), but I haven't contributed to the BBC for about fifteen years.
It's like the argument that public sector workers should have a bad salary increase because they have a great pension scheme compared to the private sector. Why tolerate the private sector having crappy pension schemes?
Disclosure: My daughter is female and will be a woman worker in a few years.
To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land. They are were the buck is ultimately supposed to stop. They have the greatest responsibilities. Ergo, they should be paid the most. The others are supposed to be subordinate to the PM, and I highly doubt that any head of a council will have the same burden as the PM. And to be perfectly frank, if 100k a year to head up a council isn't enough for you to do it, you probably shouldn't be doing the job anyway because you're a greedy money grapping snout in the trough piece of gak.
And the license fee is a tax. Just like car tax is a tax. Not everyone is required to pay it but if you want to watch live T.V (or drive a car) you have to. They don't call it a tax, but it is.
Future War Cultist wrote: To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.
In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.
Future War Cultist wrote: To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land. They are were the buck is ultimately supposed to stop. They have the greatest responsibilities.
So judges, senior doctors and military commanders should be paid less than £150k? Being a politician (including the PM) is not a job, it's a political office. It requires no training or qualifications. The pay of the PM should have no bearing on any public sector workers pay. Prime ministers may be at the highest politician in the land, but they are not in charge of these people. They also do not have responsibility. The PM is not the CEO of the civil service. They are more like the chairman of the board of directors.
Future War Cultist wrote: To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.
In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.
I know about the concept of shared cabinet responsibility but the pm is the leader at the end of the day.
And the license fee is a tax.
Nope.
Really? It'll be great to go watch live tv without having to pay for it under threat of criminal prosecution then.
Future War Cultist wrote: To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.
In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.
I know about the concept of shared cabinet responsibility but the pm is the leader at the end of the day.
True, but I rather see the whole cabinet on the same wage. In any case, I don't think that precludes other state employees from earning more. Some jobs people actually need experience and qualifications for. A chief justice or chief medical officer, for instance. I don't necesarily think they should earn more than the current PM salary, but I've no problem with them earning more than the position.
And the license fee is a tax.
Nope.
Really? It'll be great to go watch live tv without having to pay for it under threat of criminal prosecution then.
It's really not difficult to simply not use that service. It's no more a tax than a bus fare (well, to one of the handful of state owned services).
Actually it is different. If you don't pay for Sky or other subscriptions you won't end up in a criminal court. Unlike non payment of licence fee it's a civil matter. The licence fee being a criminal matter makes it more like a tax. However unlike tax licence fee debt is written off by bankruptcy and can be covered under an IVA. It's a bit of being nether fish nor fowl.
It's unfair and outdated. The fact that so many people go around it only reinforces this. It should be scrapped and replaced with a voluntary subscription.
I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
He's clearly not proving to be as pliable as they were hoping. Expect at least two more 'leaks' over the next week to try and portray him as incompetent/clueless. It's actually pretty obvious by this stage of the game that a part of the EU (or a faction within it)'s strategy is to try and discredit the opposing negotiators at home to weaken their bargaining power. Hence we get daft things like the 'Look at this unprepared fool with no documents on the table in front of him' story bollocks (when they were in his case because only an idiot leaves their policy documents in front of a photographer). The barrage of crude propaganda against Davis emanating from Brussels right now is almost embarassing, it's so relentless and transparent.
It helps them that he's a Tory though, it means that there's a line of people positively slavering at the chance to circulate and guffaw at tales of supposed Conservative incompetence.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
nareik wrote: With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.
And also more want to engage and less to skive off lectures that were too early (as I did on occasion, and many others did).
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
He's clearly not proving to be as pliable as they were hoping. Expect at least two more 'leaks' over the next week to try and portray him as incompetent/clueless. It's actually pretty obvious by this stage of the game that a part of the EU (or a faction within it)'s strategy is to try and discredit the opposing negotiators at home to weaken their bargaining power. Hence we get daft things like the 'Look at this unprepared fool with no documents on the table in front of him' story bollocks (when they were in his case because only an idiot leaves their policy documents in front of a photographer). The barrage of crude propaganda against Davis emanating from Brussels right now is almost embarassing, it's so relentless and transparent.
It helps them that he's a Tory though, it means that there's a line of people positively slavering at the chance to circulate and guffaw at tales of supposed Conservative incompetence.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Did it ever leave it?
No, I don't think it ever did, but the contrast with the resurgent Blue Tories and Red Labour is more apparent, perhaps
Does she ever do her research, check her facts and prepare like the meant to be professional shadow minster she is?
Corbyn, just keep her away from solo interviews, and keep her of tv. She may be solid majority MP but she is not good in front o the cameras. .
she just is not the one for the face of the party role.
nareik wrote: With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.
Ha!
I worked out that during my last year of University I was paying 200 pounds for each hour of teaching.
And that was if they even turned up on time, one hour lectures often ended up only being 45 minutes, it was a often a case that they were like "This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."
I think for most humanities subjects, any sufficiently motivated person can easily acquire the skills with or without the degree. All they ultimately provide is a reading list, pointers on how the field breaks down, a proofreading service, and a place to discuss the things studied. All valuable things to be sure, but certainly not worth the vast sums of money expended.
Ultimately, humanities students are simply cashcows subsidising the degrees of STEM students. And that's at the good universities. Someone my girlfriend knows was enthusiastically discussing with her their plans to go and do an undergrad in Film and TV studies at London Met the other day, and it was all she could do not to beg them to reconsider the poor life choice they were about to make.
nareik wrote: With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.
Ha!
I worked out that during my last year of University I was paying 200 pounds for each hour of teaching.
And that was if they even turned up on time, one hour lectures often ended up only being 45 minutes, it was a often a case that they were like "This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."
Waste of bloody time.
Yeah at some stages some courses had like 2-3 hours contact time a week max.
Rest was on you to do it.
Mine was higher hours but course demands required higher hours.
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.
Yep. Workshop/other fees. Book lists, pay for all own paper, and other gear your course needs yourself. Course they have a handy shop on campus...
Half the books cost a fortune and only use em for one semester.
And with new editions, second hand.. NOPE!
Law... That's a complex one... Books only get you so far, its not black and white.
Sometimes I feel like my degree was an expensive waste of time and money, Russell Group or not. Modern history. What the feth does that get you? Nothing.
Know the feeling at times, Creative Advertising...
However. Life lessons, living on own, budgeting, and more,
They are very handy skills to learn in a slightly safer environment than adult life outside Uni.
Future War Cultist wrote: Sometimes I feel like my degree was an expensive waste of time and money, Russell Group or not. Modern history. What the feth does that get you? Nothing.
Theoretically, a grounding in modern history from which you can pursue your own interests. I know plenty of history book writers who never did more than an undergrad.
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.
Yep. Workshop/other fees. Book lists, pay for all own paper, and other gear your course needs yourself. Course they have a handy shop on campus...
Half the books cost a fortune and only use em for one semester.
And with new editions, second hand.. NOPE!
Law... That's a complex one... Books only get you so far, its not black and white.
Well that depends on who you ask.
I wasn't so anti EU in my younger days, it was only during University that I became so.
I was studying European Union law (so that a whole 12 weeks of my degree wasted off the bat.) But as I was going through notes it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.
When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.
It might be that the law department of Kent (where I went) had roughly 100 foreign students in my year alone, which works out at just over 25% of the law students. But it was ferociously pro-EU. Then again, universities are all about making money at the end of the day, and a foreign student is worth about 1 1/2 of a British one in terms of student fees.
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.
Yep. Workshop/other fees. Book lists, pay for all own paper, and other gear your course needs yourself. Course they have a handy shop on campus...
Half the books cost a fortune and only use em for one semester.
And with new editions, second hand.. NOPE!
Law... That's a complex one... Books only get you so far, its not black and white.
Well that depends on who you ask.
I wasn't so anti EU in my younger days, it was only during University that I became so.
I was studying European Union law (so that a whole 12 weeks of my degree wasted off the bat.) But as I was going through notes it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.
When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.
It might be that the law department of Kent (where I went) had roughly 100 foreign students in my year alone, which works out at just over 25% of the law students. But it was ferociously pro-EU. Then again, universities are all about making money at the end of the day, and a foreign student is worth about 1 1/2 of a British one in terms of student fees.
If your classing foreign STEM, then yes as some have a over cap exemption or did used to.
Due to course cost they where very expensive degrees.
Others,yeah, foreign makes up a good% of admissions. EU in particular as they get it free.
Uni get paid!
That's interesting... Very interesting as they act like its cast iron law.
They can hold us to it...
In reality.... Well that's more interesting!
Halls of residense... There's a extra 12k min over 3 years.
nareik wrote: With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Everyone has the materials and support to get a first. Getting a first is easy if you put in any actual effort and ever bother to read the boring wads of paper you get at inductions (marking schemes are literally a 'how to get As' guide if you just tick the boxes).
welshhoppo wrote:"This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."
Waste of bloody time.
That's the entire point of university. It's for pointing people in the right drection, not spoonfeeding them.
welshhoppo wrote:
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
Woe betide! It's not hard to buy books second hand.
Future War Cultist wrote:Sometimes I feel like my degree was an expensive waste of time and money, Russell Group or not. Modern history. What the feth does that get you? Nothing.
What's it meant to get you? Some knowledge in a field you want to know about and some practice at processing data and communicating the results. That's it. Just learning. It is not, and has never been, the lie about getting you a job. That is not its purpose.
A degree in history should give you the following transferrable skills.
Research.
Critical analysis of texts.
The ability to construct an argument with supporting evidence.
Writing effectively.
Verbal presentation.
Basic data analysis.
If you complete with a high mark you also demonstrate committment and perserverance. The main thing lacking is that as far as I am aware it is a relatively solo degree, so you don't get much practice in team working.
The fact is that most jobs in the modern economy are not heavily STEM based. Employers are not so interested in specific skills and knowledge as they are in the kind of transferrable skills and soft skills that equip a graduate to tackle a wide variety of tasks and also to learn new skills as they become relevant to changing roles.
nareik wrote: With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!
Everyone has the materials and support to get a first. Getting a first is easy if you put in any actual effort and ever bother to read the boring wads of paper you get at inductions (marking schemes are literally a 'how to get As' guide if you just tick the boxes).
welshhoppo wrote:"This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."
Waste of bloody time.
That's the entire point of university. It's for pointing people in the right drection, not spoonfeeding them.
welshhoppo wrote:
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
Woe betide! It's not hard to buy books second hand.
Future War Cultist wrote:Sometimes I feel like my degree was an expensive waste of time and money, Russell Group or not. Modern history. What the feth does that get you? Nothing.
What's it meant to get you? Some knowledge in a field you want to know about and some practice at processing data and communicating the results. That's it. Just learning. It is not, and has never been, the lie about getting you a job. That is not its purpose.
It's impossible to buy second hand law books. You know why? Because they change the edition every year. They don't put them online and you can't buy them from many retails because they pump the RRP up.
It cost me over £100 for the books for one module of my law degree. Every single book was at least £40. This was on top of having to keep myself dry, clothed and fed.
And as for the "point them in the right direction." That's utter bollocks. You're paying £200 an hour for someone to give you pointers. You should at least get some weekly 1 to 1.
The fact is that most jobs in the modern economy are not heavily STEM based. Employers are not so interested in specific skills and knowledge as they are in the kind of transferrable skills and soft skills that equip a graduate to tackle a wide variety of tasks and also to learn new skills as they become relevant to changing roles.
However when specific skills (and experience) are present you'll take those over the presumed soft skills.
For example I work in agrochemicals despite not having any specific chemical or agricultural degree, but because I have a long career in foreign trade and dealing with foreign public institutions. However everyone below me in the sales department except one are all agricultural engineers.
They are overqualified for the job, and probably there are better salesmen out there who would do it better than them (indeed the one that's not an engineer is in the top5) but when recruiting usually experience > specific knowledge > soft skills. You expect everyone to be adaptable, eager to learn and a problem solver, and indeed everyone introduces himself as such.
I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.
I'm feeling better about being a history graduate now. So thanks guys.
Perhaps it's just insecurity. I always feel like a bit of an underperforming dope compared to the STEM grads. Especially my cousin. He's got a PhD in chemical engineering and he's got it made. Then there was my friend with his degree in quantity surveying who went to work in the gold mines of Australia. He's also got it made. They're both pulling down near six figure salaries.
And then there's me...delivering blinds for £12 an hour.
But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.
I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.
A lot of the fee money from degrees in the humanities and arts go to funding the Science degrees as they cost more than £9k a year per head to put on.
Though science degrees do have an advantage when it comes to books. For us it usually is not important what edition of a book you get as the changes will typically be minor corrections or layout changes rather than changes in the actual content. Maxwell's Laws won't have changed between a book published in 1999 and one in 2005, after all
Howard A Treesong wrote: I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.
You'd think that wouldn't you?
Not a single book was available from the library for 90% of the times. They often had less than 5 copies of the books you needed.
And Kent had this lovely system where you could refresh your loan at home. It was a 2 week loan period and you could refresh it 6 times. So basically an entire semester.
The only books on short term loan were the very rare books. Regular books that you could buy didn't exist on short term loan.
Perhaps it's just insecurity. I always feel like a bit of an underperforming dope compared to the STEM grads. Especially my cousin. He's got a PhD in chemical engineering and he's got it made. Then there was my friend with his degree in quantity surveying who went to work in the gold mines of Australia. He's also got it made. They're both pulling down near six figure salaries.
And then there's me...delivering blinds for £12 an hour.
My perfect cousin has got degrees in Maths, Physics, and Bionics!
It's impossible to buy second hand law books. You know why? Because they change the edition every year. They don't put them online and you can't buy them from many retails because they pump the RRP up.
You can almost always get by with previous editions. The content will almost always be the same.
And as for the "point them in the right direction." That's utter bollocks. You're paying £200 an hour for someone to give you pointers. You should at least get some weekly 1 to 1.
Well, sorry, but you're expecting something that has never been the case in higher education. Nor should it be: academics simply don't have time for that nonsense, and anyone who needs it shouldn't be there in the first place.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.
You'd think that wouldn't you?
Not a single book was available from the library for 90% of the times. They often had less than 5 copies of the books you needed.
And Kent had this lovely system where you could refresh your loan at home. It was a 2 week loan period and you could refresh it 6 times. So basically an entire semester.
The only books on short term loan were the very rare books. Regular books that you could buy didn't exist on short term loan.
When I was at uni you could renew you loan at home unless someone had put in a request for it. In that case you'd have to bring it back when it was due.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.
You'd think that wouldn't you?
Not a single book was available from the library for 90% of the times. They often had less than 5 copies of the books you needed.
And Kent had this lovely system where you could refresh your loan at home. It was a 2 week loan period and you could refresh it 6 times. So basically an entire semester.
The only books on short term loan were the very rare books. Regular books that you could buy didn't exist on short term loan.
When I was at uni you could renew you loan at home unless someone had put in a request for it. In that case you'd have to bring it back when it was due.
That's how it should have worked. But it didn't work that way for some reason, I don't know whether Kent just didn't bother to implement it that way. But it was a right old pain and exceedingly unreliable.
New cases happen every day. Plus if you compare different editions they tend to move the sections around.
And that is a nasty low blow to a lot of people.
Besides I didn't say that we needed, but would you honestly pay £200 for something and not expect to have a personal interaction with someone.
Like you'd happily pay £200 to sit in an auditorium and listen to a guy talk for 45 minutes?
My PhD is well-funded by the government and I was funded by prizes through my first research degree, but I cheerfully paid for my second undergrad with exactly zero formal one-to-one for four years. I did have one-to-one interactions with staff, but none that were specifically tied to the degree, more about other research and potential future progression. So yes. I would.
That said, this is an incredibly entitled way to look at university education anyway. It is not there to service your needs. Students are not customers. You aren't buying a degree. You are paying for the facilities to attempt to gain a degree. You might think you're paying too much for those facilities (and I'd suggest everything above 0 is too much) but breaking your fees down into contact hours is utterly meaningless.
welshhoppo wrote: N
That's how it should have worked. But it didn't work that way for some reason, I don't know whether Kent just didn't bother to implement it that way. But it was a right old pain and exceedingly unreliable.
I can't say for when you were there, but I worked as a Library Assistant at the University of Kent from 2011-2012, and it did work that way then. You reserved a book, and the person who had it was unable to renew it.
welshhoppo wrote: N
That's how it should have worked. But it didn't work that way for some reason, I don't know whether Kent just didn't bother to implement it that way. But it was a right old pain and exceedingly unreliable.
I can't say for when you were there, but I worked as a Library Assistant at the University of Kent from 2011-2012, and it did work that way then. You reserved a book, and the person who had it was unable to renew it.
I probably bumped into you there at some point as I was there during that time.
All I know is that every time I requested a book I was unable to actually get it for whatever reason. So I just ended up buying the books. I mean I bought them anyway.
I don't have a lot of good things to say about Kent, it wasn't the brightest period of my life and my depression was really bad during those years.
The style of teaching varies between universities and course. At Oxford, for instance, you get a lot of 1-2-1 or small group tutorial time with top-level academics on most courses. That is the Oxford style and you don't get it at many other places. They aren't going to be spoon-feeding people in these sessions though.
Kilkrazy wrote: The style of teaching varies between universities and course. At Oxford, for instance, you get a lot of 1-2-1 or small group tutorial time with top-level academics on most courses. That is the Oxford style and you don't get it at many other places. They aren't going to be spoon-feeding people in these sessions though.
Most Russell Groups have small tutorial sessions. It'd be a rare thing to have one-to-one at these, even at Oxbridge (and it's probably research students taking them a lot of the time, not faculty), unless you happened to have an extremely small course. I've taught groups of three at Glasgow, but only by coindidence. It's counterproductive in most circumstances in my experience unless all the students are really good.
As with A-level, I feel classes that are too small become very quiet and lack community, important questions don't get asked because there's not enough interaction between students. You want people to get on well for any group projects and for questioning and discussion. You can't do that when there's almost no one there. One to one tutoring is fine for people cramming for exams, not for debate and discussion or group work and competition.
Perhaps it's just insecurity. I always feel like a bit of an underperforming dope compared to the STEM grads. Especially my cousin. He's got a PhD in chemical engineering and he's got it made. Then there was my friend with his degree in quantity surveying who went to work in the gold mines of Australia. He's also got it made. They're both pulling down near six figure salaries.
And then there's me...delivering blinds for £12 an hour.
So what are *you* going to do about it? If you believe you are undervalued (which given that you have a degree is almost a certainty) then what is it about you that means you can't get a better paid, higher quality job? What job would you want to do and what do you have to do to get there and when are you going to start doing that? If you want to be a chemical engineering, why not re-join university and undertake a second degree?
Rather than say "my degree is useless", perhaps it would be better to ask what skills you gained and ask yourself what you are not using to allow you to progress?
I probably bumped into you there at some point as I was there during that time.
All I know is that every time I requested a book I was unable to actually get it for whatever reason. So I just ended up buying the books. I mean I bought them anyway.
I don't have a lot of good things to say about Kent, it wasn't the brightest period of my life and my depression was really bad during those years.
If you interacted with the team up on first floor in the Templeman building, you probably did! Heck, you quite possibly met Reds8n too, he works on campus.
Tangentially, I had a friend who swapped from Law to Classics whilst I was there. She'd done it for a year, but found it totally soul-sucking. Now she's a highly paid banker at Halifax.
it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.
When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.
and if a policeman isn't wearing his helmet he can't arrest you !
Your birth certificate makes you a corporation..
..all you have to do is renounce your citizenship and say you're a sovereign citizen and then the police can't arrest you !
meanwhile....
Spoiler:
.... least their age will be verified before they sign up right ?
Rather than say "my degree is useless", perhaps it would be better to ask what skills you gained and ask yourself what you are not using to allow you to progress?
The problem with humanities degrees is that they essentially help you to develop highly generic skills. They're topped any day of the week in the employment line by anyone with experience. Your choices are to carry on with academia, settle into a job in human resources/advertising, convert to being an accountant/solicitor, try and get your foot in the door of a graduate scheme (civil service, banks, consultancy, whatever) or go entrepreneurial. All of which are open to anyone with any degree effectively, STEM or humanities.
Although there is actually one new option. My girlfriend was looking about trying to figure out what to do for a masters (since the state funds them now), and I advised her to go and do one in librarianship. Why? Because she'd just done 3 years of Creative Writing at Holloway, and by that stage, you're either a writer or you're not. Doing a masters in it wouldn't do anything except stave off the inevitable. Librarianship though?
Way I see it, do whatever you want for an undergrad. Then go back for your masters and specialise in something that'll get you a job. It doesn't have to be librarianship, there are other options. But if you pick a masters that puts you ahead of the 'generic' graduates in a specific field, you can more or less walk into that field and get a good salary straight off the bat instead of serving lattes.
One of my colleagues did a social anthropology degree followed by a law conversion course. He's now our main project manager, looking after the development of digital interactive English Language Teaching apps.
I honestly regret going to University, I simply wasn't cut out for it intellectually (not that I'm not intelligent, but I lack the intellectual drive and interest to succeed at academia) or socially (undiagnosed Autism/Aspergers. Just got my diagnosis last month). I did far better in schools (11 GCSE's, 4 A's, 3 B's. 4 C's), probably because of the more rigid and structured learning environment. In schools, you are taught. In Universities, you're largely expected to teach yourself. I didn't handle the transition well.
I wish I'd done something vocational instead, like a trade school.
welshhoppo wrote: I was studying European Union law (so that a whole 12 weeks of my degree wasted off the bat.) But as I was going through notes it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.
When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.
Surely the basis would be the agreements signed by governments joining the EU, would it not?
EU law isn't going to vanish overnight in March 2019. In fact, the knowledge of dealing with it will be even more important when we are on the outside and have to cope with it without having any say in its creation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I honestly regret going to University, I simply wasn't cut out for it intellectually (not that I'm not intelligent, but I lack the intellectual drive and interest to succeed at academia) or socially (undiagnosed Autism/Aspergers. Just got my diagnosis last month). I did far better in schools (11 GCSE's, 4 A's, 3 B's. 4 C's), probably because of the more rigid and structured learning environment. In schools, you are taught. In Universities, you're largely expected to teach yourself. I didn't handle the transition well.
I wish I'd done something vocational instead, like a trade school.
You're beginning to sound more and more like me. Are you sure you're not also a semi-depressed alcoholic with a morbid sense of humour?
Co'tor Shas wrote:
welshhoppo wrote: I was studying European Union law (so that a whole 12 weeks of my degree wasted off the bat.) But as I was going through notes it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.
When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.
Surely the basis would be the agreements signed by governments joining the EU, would it not?
Back when this was going on, there was no EU. It was still the EEC and was focused on trade. The Laws were brought in later, but the Courts were dealing with things that were not trade long before that.
The European Court of Human Rights isn't anything to do with the EU, not is the International Court of Justice. The UK will continue to be subject to both these courts after leaving the EU, and of course to the World Trade Organisation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I honestly regret going to University, I simply wasn't cut out for it intellectually (not that I'm not intelligent, but I lack the intellectual drive and interest to succeed at academia) or socially (undiagnosed Autism/Aspergers. Just got my diagnosis last month). I did far better in schools (11 GCSE's, 4 A's, 3 B's. 4 C's), probably because of the more rigid and structured learning environment. In schools, you are taught. In Universities, you're largely expected to teach yourself. I didn't handle the transition well.
I wish I'd done something vocational instead, like a trade school.
You're beginning to sound more and more like me. Are you sure you're not also a semi-depressed alcoholic with a morbid sense of humour?
I can tick off 2 out of 3 of those.
I went for drinks in Durham with work colleagues last month. It was the first time I'd drank in 2 years.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.
You'd think that wouldn't you?
Not a single book was available from the library for 90% of the times. They often had less than 5 copies of the books you needed.
And Kent had this lovely system where you could refresh your loan at home. It was a 2 week loan period and you could refresh it 6 times. So basically an entire semester.
The only books on short term loan were the very rare books. Regular books that you could buy didn't exist on short term loan.
In addition to books, my Uni (Teesside University) had some sort of electronic system with ebooks you could "borrow" temporarily. It was an utter nightmare to use especially on my rustbucket laptop, very slow internet connection, low framerate when scrolling, poor stability - it was always crashing.
I'm scratching the back of my brain but I do think Kent was trying to implement something along those lines.
They used to upload everything to the blackboard, they would stream lectures (when it worked) and so on.
I think we might eventually reach a point where there is no need to go to university at all and we can all learn from our pods (as none of us will be able to afford houses). I mean the Open University is a thing.
As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
LONDON/DUBLIN (Reuters) - Bank of America (BAC.N) on Friday became the first Wall Street lender to pick Dublin as its new base for its European Union operations as Britain prepares to leave the bloc.
International banks are planning to set up subsidiaries in the EU to ensure they can continue to serve clients if their London operations lose the ability to operate across the bloc once Britain leaves in March 2019.
Frankfurt and Dublin are emerging as early winners for banks' post-Brexit operations.
"Bank of America has operated in Ireland and engaged in the local community for almost 50 years," said Brian Moynihan, chairman and CEO of Bank of America.
The bank did not say how many roles would be moved or created in the Irish capital, where it currently has over 700 staff and a fully licensed entity, but said that some roles would also move to other EU locations.
The Irish government, which has been keen to attract investment banks to Dublin, welcomed the news.
"This announcement. ..is a strong endorsement of Ireland's attractiveness as a location for investment, and of the government's approach to securing Brexit-related activities," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said following the announcement and a meeting with Moynihan in Dublin on Friday.
Details of banks' Brexit arrangements are starting to emerge following a July 14 deadline for them to submit details of their contingency plans to the Bank of England.
Wall Street's Citigroup Inc. (C.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) have both picked Frankfurt as bases for their EU hubs, whilst Barclays (BARC.L) has said it is talking with regulators about extending its activities in Dublin.
Morgan Stanley is likely to spread some of its operations across the EU, with its asset management business expected to go to Dublin as well, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on July 19.
Bank of America is extending its existing lease on its building in Leopardstown, Dublin, according to the Irish Times. The newspaper also reported the bank was in talks on two other office spaces in the city that would be able to accommodate up to 1,000 employees, giving it the flexibility to add up to 300 additional staff.
Spoiler:
.... seems this is either the 12th or 13th -- claims differ -- to confirm they're moving out of the UK.
Howard A Treesong wrote: As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.
To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.
Howard A Treesong wrote: As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.
To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.
Same here. I talk a lot more on forums that I do in real life.
My sunny disposition and charming personality must make it hard for me to talk to people in real life.
Howard A Treesong wrote: As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.
To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.
I definitely wasn't ready the first time around. Went to uni straight from school and put exactly no effort in. Went back at 27 and applied myself and the experience was night and day. Now that I teach people at university I tend to feel that only a tiny fraction of school leavers are at all ready for university and almost everyone would be far better off working for at least a few years before embarking on higher education.
Lord Rothermere, who owns the Daily Mail among other papers, is known to be a Remainer, but he avoids interfering in the editorial policy.
If I am to speculate, moving the Daily Mail to Ireland would be a delicious kind of revenge on its editor Paul Dacre, who loathes the EU with a great passion and did so much to bring about the referendum result.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ruth Davidson has come out fighting!
The BBC wrote:She also said people were losing faith in capitalism and were angry about social injustice.
Ruth Davidson wrote:"In short, the multiple instabilities of insecure employment, opaque career progression, wage stagnation, high rental and commuting costs and growing financial barriers to home ownership clearly explain why Britain's young adults don't feel they have a personal stake in a system that doesn't work for them."
One could add the high cost of further education but that isn't the case in Scotland, of course.
The BBC wrote:She also said people were losing faith in capitalism and were angry about social injustice.
Ruth Davidson wrote:"In short, the multiple instabilities of insecure employment, opaque career progression, wage stagnation, high rental and commuting costs and growing financial barriers to home ownership clearly explain why Britain's young adults don't feel they have a personal stake in a system that doesn't work for them."
One could add the high cost of further education but that isn't the case in Scotland, of course.
It is interesting that Thatchers intent with the right to buy was to effectively buy working class voters by giving them a financial stake in the country with home ownership, and conever them to Tories. It worked. That, amongst other neo-liberal Tory/ New Labour policy has effectively disenfranchised every succeeding generation that follows.
If people have no stake in the country or its future, and they feel like cash cows for the pensions and securities of previous generations, they are quite obviously going to be angry and uncooperative. I have great sympathy for anyone under 40 at the moment, and I dread to think how my young teenage children are going to fare. It worries me greatly.
If the Tories continue, what's next? They've already botched everything with austerity and Brexit. What else do they have to do before people realise how financially incompetent and dangerous for the country they actually are?
The only way they'll get ousted is if they start cutting pensions, and raise taxes, which they will eventually have to do. There's only so much you can squeeze out of the public finances before you have to tackle the elephant in the room.
The workplace pension is, I think, the first step on the path to removing the responsibility of pensions from the State. Like all things, it'll be gradual, but I get the feeling that by the time my kids approach retirement age, the idea of State issued pensions will be long forgotten for all bar the poorest in society. People will certainly be expected to take care of their own finances. The amount of NI I pay a month over the last 27 years, and am projected to pay for the next 24, could certainly have contributed to a quite comfortable pension, and private health and dental cover for my family too. Maybe the Tories are onto something.
Unfortunately, if we follow the rabbit down that hole, we'd then have a health care system like in the US. But as I can afford it, I'm alright Jack.
The workplace pension is, I think, the first step on the path to removing the responsibility of pensions from the State. Like all things, it'll be gradual, but I get the feeling that by the time my kids approach retirement age, the idea of State issued pensions will be long forgotten for all bar the poorest in society. People will certainly be expected to take care of their own finances. The amount of NI I pay a month over the last 27 years, and am projected to pay for the next 24, could certainly have contributed to a quite comfortable pension, and private health and dental cover for my family too. Maybe the Tories are onto something.
I'm generally of the view that state pensions should be means tested. It seems unreasonable that someone on a £50k pension should still be entitled to the same state pension as someone that has no private pension. I also think the state pension is ludicrously low for those that have no other income. My view is that the basic pension would rise to match the minimum wage (lets say £12000) but that the state only supports paying it to top up a private pension up to a certain point (lets say £18,000 as an example). As such if you have a private pension of £12000 you'd be entitled to a state pension of £6000. I also think you should roll all the remaining benefits into this as well. So free bus passes, winter allowance, TV licence and so on should all be incorporated into an aggregated amount. The principle is that those on low incomes get the support they need, those that don't need it don't have that same support as they don't need it.
In other news here is some lovely food we will get to enjoy as part of a US-UK free trade deal post Brexit. I think I'll buy European to be on the safe side...
As regards pensions, I think the argument that everyone should have a stake in the system works both ways.
In other words, rich people who have saved into a private pension fund, and also have made extensive NI contributions to the state pension fund (mandatory by law), deserve their basic state pension as much as anyone else.
Also worth considering, if you have a huge pension fund and consequently a huge pension, you pay income tax on it.
In other news here is some lovely food we will get to enjoy as part of a US-UK free trade deal post Brexit. I think I'll buy European to be on the safe side...
This would have major consequences for UK producers. As a UK producer, do you lower your standards to compete with cheaper imports or do you keep more stringent EU standards so that you can keep exporting to your bigger market next door while the cheaper imports make it harder than ever to keep afloat?
Because for everyone except the biggest players maintaining two sets of standards is economically not possible.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.
I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.
I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
Kilkrazy wrote: I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.
Political news today:
Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.
Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.
I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.
I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
The country IS going to the dogs!
The Police and CPS have made a rod for their own backs. They are not fit for purpose and any increase in police numbers would mean an increase in the practices of bad policing.
Criminals roving the streets? then why are prisons teeming with the convicted?
Fearful of crime? Hardly. What you and everyone else should fear is ever ever being arrested or investigated.
Ever wonder why legal experts were so outraged when the right to silence was nixed?
Prospect of being interviewed under caution? Innocent? Make damn sure you have the best criminal defence team money can buy.
Criminals? Who are these people? They certainly aren't all Noyes, Brady, Bronson hardly any of them in fact.
Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.
At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.
A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.
Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.
At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.
A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.
Agree entirely, I use the HS2 route from time to time, and it is already a great service. I leave home in Cumbria at about 7.15am and can be in our office daaaaaaaaahn The Strand, 'avin a knees-up with Mother Brown, before 11. I have no idea how 20 minutes off that is worth £800squillion. But we apparently can't afford electrification to Windermere, which probably wouldn't even cost the PR budget for HS2.
Whirlwind wrote: ...I'm generally of the view that state pensions should be means tested. It seems unreasonable that someone on a £50k pension should still be entitled to the same state pension as someone that has no private pension. I also think the state pension is ludicrously low for those that have no other income. My view is that the basic pension would rise to match the minimum wage (lets say £12000) but that the state only supports paying it to top up a private pension up to a certain point (lets say £18,000 as an example). As such if you have a private pension of £12000 you'd be entitled to a state pension of £6000. I also think you should roll all the remaining benefits into this as well. So free bus passes, winter allowance, TV licence and so on should all be incorporated into an aggregated amount. The principle is that those on low incomes get the support they need, those that don't need it don't have that same support as they don't need it.
I agree with Kilkrazy, if you've earned it, you should keep it. It would be galling in the extreme for someone who has worked hard to put in £2-400 a month into a private pension for decades to receive a much reduced, or removed State pension which puts them on the same level of pension income as someone who didn't, or couldn't, save that amount each month.
As it is many people factor in their State pension entitlement when calculating how much to pay into their private pension, and the overwhelming majority of people that would be affected by this would be normal working Joes.
Ive heard that many of the wealthy refuse their state pension entitlement anyway. Don't know how true that is, but I can imagine that many wouldn't even notice £150 a week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.
But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this
Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?
The country IS going to the dogs!
I think you need to gain some perspective and calm down a bit. Apparently, according to statistics, Boston is the murder capital of the UK...
Boston is not some seething cesspool of violence and murder, but the stats and reporting make it seem so. Perspective is needed and a cool head. Getting tied up in knots about this sort of thing re-enforces your own fears, and doesn't really do anything productive except spread your own anxieties.
Jadenim wrote: Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.
Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...
feth. Off.
Edit; spelling.
Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.
At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.
A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.
It doesn't help that Great Western didn't actually do any research into how much it would cost to electify the lines. It went by about 500% because they forgot they'd have to dig up Victorian tunnels whilst keeping the lines open and other silly things.
Besides HS2 is very important, people need to leave Birmingham as quickly as possible!
was that we had no plan.
, foreign policy, and so on...
