Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
welshhoppo wrote:One of the main benefits of Brexit, one that we can all agree on, is that there is no EU scapegoat hanging around parliament anymore, because they've beaten that poor goat for decades now, both the Torys and Labour have done it when it suits them.
So hopefully post Brexit, we can have a new age of politics without the EU causing issues, and without people blaming the EU for their mistakes. If we can get the younger generation interested in politics, then it can be for the good of us all.
That won't happen. The UK and the EU will still be right next to each other and whatever one does will have some sort of influence or effect on each other (albeit the EU will have a bigger effect on the UK than the UK on the EU). If/when the UK leaves the EU it will just all be rephrased as the big bad EU being a bully instead of all the "who elected them, why do they have that power" talking points. It's already started, right now, during the negotiation. "Why won't the EU consider the UK's needs in the negotiations?" and so on (just read through the thread from the start for a few examples).
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
Edut: it's European capital of culture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 07:37:42
I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
I think this partially comes down to voters not really understanding the consequences. The idea that basically everything will stay the same except that we aren't being controlled by those "damn dirty rats" that have secret plans to turn the EU into the Cambodia of the past...yet the nice things, the benefits that the EU bring the same people want to keep. The argument that we don't want to pay into the club but want to keep the things that those payments contribute to. I'd like to see how long we'd stay in the Eurovision song contest if we suddenly decided that it was run as dictatorship, wanted to 'take back control', and were withdrawing UK funding. It wouldn't stop being called the Eurovision song contest though.
Anyway given the way the Country wants to treat anyone that isn't from the UK I somehow doubt we'd be awarded a useful City of anything never mind City of Culture. Perhaps we could go in for "City of Isolationism", "City of Have Cake and Eat it", "City of Rotting Food in fields" or "City that dislikes the EU the most".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 10:02:34
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
And if it is to be exclusive to EU/EEA etc members only, then they shouldn't call it a European City of Culture, they should call it what it is: an EU City of Culture.
And to be clear, I'm not whining. I don't want to "have my cake and eat it", I couldn't care less if we're not applicable for the EU City of Culture.
I'm just calling out something that I view to be petty and fundamentally dishonest.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
Edut: it's European capital of culture.
Then call it what it is, the EU Capitol of Culture. Stop being dishonest and pretending its a contest designed to promote European unity and solidarity, whilst excluding many European countries.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/25 10:18:53
Kilkrazy wrote: The political apathy has already been dispelled. The youth are mobilising and registering in large numbers. The Tory Party is the party of the old people. Labour is recruiting fast. I've just joined, and I've never belonged to any party before.
We need proportional representation ASAP. We should have another referendum with an open ended question and a proper royal commission to work out options to be referendumized later on.
We should break England into a number of regional parliaments, overthrow Westminster and introduce a federal system.
You joined a Labour party that has a leader who's probably more opposed to the EU than I am?
I've been wondering for a while now how the Labour party will square that circle...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....Obviously, I believe that Brexit will be a success, but we really need to wait at least 10 years before we can make an accurate conclusion one way or another.
Similarly, I believe that Britain will be a success despite Brexit. There's nothing like a "bit" of economic friction to really focus people's minds and give them some motivation.
Good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
It took me 10 posts to say what you've just said in one sentence!
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
I think this partially comes down to voters not really understanding the consequences. The idea that basically everything will stay the same except that we aren't being controlled by those "damn dirty rats" that have secret plans to turn the EU into the Cambodia of the past...yet the nice things, the benefits that the EU bring the same people want to keep. The argument that we don't want to pay into the club but want to keep the things that those payments contribute to. I'd like to see how long we'd stay in the Eurovision song contest if we suddenly decided that it was run as dictatorship, wanted to 'take back control', and were withdrawing UK funding. It wouldn't stop being called the Eurovision song contest though.
Anyway given the way the Country wants to treat anyone that isn't from the UK I somehow doubt we'd be awarded a useful City of anything never mind City of Culture. Perhaps we could go in for "City of Isolationism", "City of Have Cake and Eat it", "City of Rotting Food in fields" or "City that dislikes the EU the most".
We know from recent Macron and Juncker speeches that a Remain vote would not have been a vote for the status quo
And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
I certainly don't
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/25 10:54:03
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
Were you ok with the name when it only excluded Russia and Belarus?
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
Were you ok with the name when it only excluded Russia and Belarus?
As long as the oil keeps flowing through Belarus to the EU, then as far as Brussels is concerned, there are European values and then there's European values, and if they don't like them, then I'm sure they have others for sale.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
And if it is to be exclusive to EU/EEA etc members only, then they shouldn't call it a European City of Culture, they should call it what it is: an EU City of Culture.
And to be clear, I'm not whining. I don't want to "have my cake and eat it", I couldn't care less if we're not applicable for the EU City of Culture.
I'm just calling out something that I view to be petty and fundamentally dishonest.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
Edut: it's European capital of culture.
Then call it what it is, the EU Capitol of Culture. Stop being dishonest and pretending its a contest designed to promote European unity and solidarity, whilst excluding many European countries.
So semantics then?
But fair enough, there are 50 countries in continental Europe, 28 including us presently are in the EU, there are 5 candidate countries, and a further 3 countries that are members of the EEA/EFTA. So that's only 36 countries eligible for entry into this "European" venture.
But hang on, those countries that are members of the EEA/EFTA or are candidates aren't actually members of the EU,so calling it the EU city of culture would be dishonest too.
What then should we call it? What about
"The city of culture for the EU, candidate member states, and European countries who are members of the European free trade association or European Economic Area"?
Yes, that fits and, it rolls of the tongue too.
Or, it could just be that the title broadly fits the venture, like the Eurovision song contest even if it has Israel and Australia in it, and you're just picking at this word to try and score a political point which is frankly pointless and no one gives a gak about?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Australia has criticised the UK's post-Brexit trade plans to split quotas of food imports from around the world.
EU rules allow for a certain amount of goods to be brought in from countries outside of the Union without charging full tariffs.
After Brexit, the UK and EU want to split these quotas, based on where the goods are mostly consumed.
But Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said it would impose unacceptable restrictions on their exports.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The point is that you have a choice about where you place your quota at the moment.
"Therefore, given that you could put it in the UK or you could put it into continental Europe, why would we accept a proposition that would see a decline in the quota available because of the Brexit decision?"
Dave Harrison, from Beef and Lamb New Zealand, agreed that its finances could be hit hard if they were not allowed to choose where to import more or less of their products.
He told Today: "We understand that Brexit causes a lot of difficulties for the European governments, but we don't think third countries should have to take a hit in terms of their negotiated legal rights as a result of that."
Shanker Singham, of The Legatum Institute, said the UK should talk to other countries about trade directly.
He added: "We should be going to them and saying we have the ability - once we take up our chair at the WTO [World Trade Organisation] - to do trade agreements with you that will include a certain amount of liberalisation, depending on what you are prepared to give us.
"But if you damage us on the way to reclaiming our seat on the WTO, we are not going to be able to do those deals with you."
The US, Brazil and Canada are also said to have their doubts about the new deal, believing it could hit them financially.
A spokesman for the UK's Department of International Trade told Today the government wanted to minimise disruption to trading relationships and would engage with other members of the World Trade Organisation in an "open, inclusive way".
Countryside impact
Meanwhile, Tory MP Neil Parish, who chairs the environment, food and rural affairs committee in Parliament, raised concerns that if the UK's exports to the EU were hit post-Brexit and more imports were coming into the country from further afield, it could affect industries on our shores.
Shadow international secretary of trade, Barry Gardiner, also said the wider implications could see an impact on the British countryside.
"As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks," he said. "That means you also affect the tourist trade.
"These are huge decisions that are being taken and we must protect our farmers to make sure that our countryside looks the way we want it to. "
What a shame that no one pointed all this out before eh ..?
Oh, hang on....
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
I certainly don't
It's a very good point. In the event of a remain win we would have been unlikely to have shocked the youth vote enough to mobilise, Jeremy Corby would continue to operate as leader whilst being attacked by Tories and his own party, and TM would have stayed as Home secretary.
Yuk.
However, considering the alternative, was it worth it? I don't know, only if there's a see change in politics and that a revitalised Labour actually sweeps to power would it even be vaguely worth it, because the alternative is what we have now, a gak storm of incompetence and polarised politics.
I'm very much on the fence on this one, without the Brexit vote people would not have believed the utter incompetence and self serving nature of the Conservative party, also how valuable and intricately intertwined our relationship with the EU is. I think it's opened a lot of eyes.
Socialism is fast losing its dirty word status, and the credibility of capitalism as the only way to run a country has been deeply shaken. That's probably the best outcome of this.
However, here's another one for you. Would Trump have happened if there was no Brexit?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
I certainly don't
It's a very good point. In the event of a remain win we would have been unlikely to have shocked the youth vote enough to mobilise, Jeremy Corby would continue to operate as leader whilst being attacked by Tories and his own party, and TM would have stayed as Home secretary.
Yuk.
However, considering the alternative, was it worth it? I don't know, only if there's a see change in politics and that a revitalised Labour actually sweeps to power would it even be vaguely worth it, because the alternative is what we have now, a gak storm of incompetence and polarised politics.
I'm very much on the fence on this one, without the Brexit vote people would not have believed the utter incompetence and self serving nature of the Conservative party, also how valuable and intricately intertwined our relationship with the EU is. I think it's opened a lot of eyes.
Socialism is fast losing its dirty word status, and the credibility of capitalism as the only way to run a country has been deeply shaken. That's probably the best outcome of this.
However, here's another one for you. Would Trump have happened if there was no Brexit?
Regardless of Brexit, I think Trump would have happened anyway, for the simple reason that thanks to 20 years of anti-Hiliary Clinton propaganda in the right-wing US media, there are a lot of people in the USA who think she is the devil incarnate.
I'll be honest and say I wouldn't have voted for Clinton either, but that would be due to being against her foreign and economic policies, rather than her as a person. Some of the abuse thrown at Clinton is vile and disgusting and there's no need for that in politics
As to the Labour party and Corbyn, I'll say what I've said before, because it's a huge problem for Labour:
Corbyn has been anti-EU for decades, the youth vote of Labour is pro-EU.
Australia has criticised the UK's post-Brexit trade plans to split quotas of food imports from around the world.
EU rules allow for a certain amount of goods to be brought in from countries outside of the Union without charging full tariffs.
After Brexit, the UK and EU want to split these quotas, based on where the goods are mostly consumed.
But Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said it would impose unacceptable restrictions on their exports.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The point is that you have a choice about where you place your quota at the moment.
"Therefore, given that you could put it in the UK or you could put it into continental Europe, why would we accept a proposition that would see a decline in the quota available because of the Brexit decision?"
Dave Harrison, from Beef and Lamb New Zealand, agreed that its finances could be hit hard if they were not allowed to choose where to import more or less of their products.
He told Today: "We understand that Brexit causes a lot of difficulties for the European governments, but we don't think third countries should have to take a hit in terms of their negotiated legal rights as a result of that."
Shanker Singham, of The Legatum Institute, said the UK should talk to other countries about trade directly.
He added: "We should be going to them and saying we have the ability - once we take up our chair at the WTO [World Trade Organisation] - to do trade agreements with you that will include a certain amount of liberalisation, depending on what you are prepared to give us.
"But if you damage us on the way to reclaiming our seat on the WTO, we are not going to be able to do those deals with you."
The US, Brazil and Canada are also said to have their doubts about the new deal, believing it could hit them financially.
A spokesman for the UK's Department of International Trade told Today the government wanted to minimise disruption to trading relationships and would engage with other members of the World Trade Organisation in an "open, inclusive way".
Countryside impact
Meanwhile, Tory MP Neil Parish, who chairs the environment, food and rural affairs committee in Parliament, raised concerns that if the UK's exports to the EU were hit post-Brexit and more imports were coming into the country from further afield, it could affect industries on our shores.
Shadow international secretary of trade, Barry Gardiner, also said the wider implications could see an impact on the British countryside.
"As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks," he said. "That means you also affect the tourist trade.
"These are huge decisions that are being taken and we must protect our farmers to make sure that our countryside looks the way we want it to. "
What a shame that no one pointed all this out before eh ..?
Oh, hang on....
Serious question, because I genuinely don't know, and I don't know if you know, but what do we import from Australia in the grand scheme of things?
Apart from wine, which we buy from loads of other nations anyway, I can't really think of anything we get from Australia.
I know they export huge quantities of minerals and ores, but that all goes to China.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 12:25:50
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It's not just how much we import -- and mind it's not just Australia there but also the USA, Canada etc etc as well -- those ones we're going to deal a deal with super quickly and awesomely remember -- but the fact that if we did some magical deal to let in..... oh let's say all the NZ lamb and butter that was talked up so much during the campaign -- at a better rate than we currently get this will hurt/kill/whatever the UK producers who have just lost their good access to their biggest market .
The shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said Liam Fox had been warned about the danger of a dispute over the quota share deal. He also cautioned against accepting higher amounts of low-tariff imports of products such as lamb because of the impact it would have on UK farmers and the countryside.
“We warned the secretary of state, Liam Fox, about this a number of months ago and he said this was going to be very easy because it was not going to make any changes in the current total quota that the EU has,” he told Today.
Gardiner said the countries raising objections about the quota-sharing plan had a point and “this is something that is going to be a tougher negotiation than the government ever thought”.
He added: “We must not look at this simply as a matter of economics. It’s not simply about, ‘are we going to get cheaper lamb in the UK if we import a lot more from New Zealand?’ - the real issue here is what these things do to our wider economy and the landscape of this country.
“As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks, that means you also affect the tourist trade.”
Now TBf, if say you're already a rich land owner then the oppurtunity to buy up more land in the UK as the smaller farms go bust is great -- but I'm sure tax avoidance , rising interest rates and something akin to a firesale with regards to British assets is of no interest at all to many of the really rich people who pushed for Brexit safe in the knowledge that it won't affect them really at all.
.. and what have we got in our corner ..?
Liam bloody Fox ..?? !!
Sat there droning on about how he can do as many trade deals as he likes...
Number of trade deals he *has* completed: 0
Number of trade deals, with one of/the largest economies & /our closest neighbours that he's tearing up : 1
The government has admitted that it has yet to secure the agreement of dozens of countries to roll over preferential trade access for British companies after Brexit.
It came as the car industry bosses pressed the prime minister for clarity on post-Brexit arrangements in a meeting at Downing Street.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, said that his department had not yet reached agreement with about 60 countries, from South Korea to Switzerland, whose markets British exporters can reach on terms guaranteed through European Union trade deals.
Dr Fox and other senior figures had suggested previously that these countries’ EU trade agreements could be “rolled over” seamlessly to apply to the UK. However, under questioning from MPs on the the international trade committee yesterday, he said: “We haven’t had an indication from any of them that they don’t want to get bilateral access . . . it’s not quite as simple as rolling them over.
and we have Gove.. a man who was against the Good Friday as he thinks the SAS could've taken out the IRA
"A council has been called “cruel and callous” for proposing £1,000 fines to homeless people sleeping in tents in the city centre.
Stoke-on-Trent council in Staffordshire is consulting on a public space protection order (PSPO) that will make it an offence for a person to “assemble, erect, occupy or use” a tent unless part of a council-sanctioned activity such as a music festival.
Under such a scheme anyone who fails to pay their £100 on-the-spot penalty notice can be prosecuted and could be fined up to £1,000 in court."
... what ?!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 13:06:54
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
We'll make up the shortfall with extra exports of Duchy originals
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
The purpose of the idea is to encourage countries to be in the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Corbyn has been anti-EU for decades, the youth vote of Labour is pro-EU.
How do you square that circle? ...
Quite simply, Corbyn is the leader of the party, but he is not the Labour party. He's also a pacifist, which I vehemently disagree with, but there's enough about him that I do agree with that I'm prepared to vote for him.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Corbyn is coming around to the idea that the EU is better protection for workers' rights and well-being than the Tory government, also that Brexit is the great vulnerability of the Conservatives.
I think Corbyn is also quite happy to sit around and wait for the Tory party to implode, for Brexit to be deemed a failure, and for labour to emerge as saviours of the country.
Also, the purpose of the city of culture was to bring different cultures together. It wasn't about being in the EU, it was about accepting that other Europeans aren't that different from us. It's a shame that a lot of people think the EU is Europe at the end of the day.
But heck. If we are paying our dues in the divorce bill for the next few years, we probably deserve to keep our place in the city of culture. At least just vote behind our backs and kick us out that way.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
The parliament is full of people who's only interest is self interest. I think that it's not a case of selfish people being MPs, but being in that environment turns you into a selfish git 9 times out of 10.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
I disagree. I believe a lot of MPs are there to serve their constitutents and the nation as a whole. It is the minority of gak bags -- I'm looking at you, Bozo -- who get big headlines and spoil the overall image.
Ooops! I broke the swear filter again!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 21:03:59
Others have already addressed it but now people are complaining about the name of the contest instead of the rules? Is that really a hill worth dying on? "EU vs. Europe" in a name? "EU Capital of Culture" wouldn't even be correct because it allows cities to participate that are not yet part of the EU. It's a simple name, be happy it's not some sort of EU bureaucratic mess that would need three lines and half a minute to pronounce.
And the point about how it should be open to all European countries despite it being an EU funded project. Wasn't there a lot of whining from Brexiters about how the UK is paying more into the EU than it gets out. And now you want the EU to finance this thing for anyone, even countries that don't pay into the EU, really?
As someone who voted for Brexit, I pretty much agree, it's flogging a dead horse now, it feels completely like a thing to whine about.
If the British Government deigns it wants to spend money promoting a city over others for tourism, it's welcome to, that's up to them, or, in fact, us, if you care enough about the subject matter to write to your MP. If the various EU affiliated organisations want to make a pot for that, that's up to them.
Otherwise, who gives a monkeys, it's just a waste of electrons.
Compel wrote: As someone who voted for Brexit, I pretty much agree, it's flogging a dead horse now, it feels completely like a thing to whine about.
If the British Government deigns it wants to spend money promoting a city over others for tourism, it's welcome to, that's up to them, or, in fact, us, if you care enough about the subject matter to write to your MP. If the various EU affiliated organisations want to make a pot for that, that's up to them.
Otherwise, who gives a monkeys, it's just a waste of electrons.
I only care enough to bicker about it on Dakka Dakka.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
The purpose of the idea is to encourage countries to be in the EU.
And how is that working out for them?
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent. And the V4 nations are right to be leery. The fear of the Big Bad Bear is what drove these countries into NATO and the EU to begin with, and Brussels treats them like they have them by the balls because of that (in addition to being rising economies that have enjoyed some of the economic benefits of EU membership). And finally, the V4 nations are watching the EU's attempts to "punish" Great Britain for having the gall to leave their little clubhouse. And many of them don't like what they see.
That is a big reason for the closer political/military ties with the U.S. under the NATO umbrella. Eventually, if things keep going as is, those nations may follow Britain's lead and leave the EU. With the European Union being in relatively secure position, their true colors and arrogance have come out in spades. Between a hypothetical threat from Putin's Russia and an increasingly antagonistic Turkey, and the dangerous subtle soft tyranny of the EUSSR, there are those that think that standing together in a separate V4 bloc is a better bet and decide to go it alone. If they decide to stay in NATO (which they likely will; and thanks to the dominance of the United States in the North Atlantic alliance, the EU can't do a damn thing about it), they could pull it off.
The EU isn't monolithic. And people in the member-states are getting tired of the BS steaming out of Brussels.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/26 04:36:22
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the capital of culture; we're only paying into the eu until 2019. I'm sure if team brexit agreed to fund the capital of culture until at least 2023 (a) we'd still be able to enter and (b) there'd be outrage about us paying the eu.
It was nice of May to refuse to reimburse the cities for their wasted expendature. Like she's refused to pay for the Manchester terror costs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/26 08:12:52
