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.

Palindrome wrote:
Ed Miliband was the wrong choice for the Labour leadership, certainly initially, but he has definately been getting better. If he keeps improving the way that he has been then he should be in a good position by the next election.

Are you a relation?

Doom mongers warned that Britain would be, er, doomed, if we didn't join the Euro. No doubt they'll say the same if we leave the EU.

We could be faced with the possibility of an independant Scotland joining the EU and England exiting. Interesting times ahead.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Are you a relation?

Nope, I'm not even a Labour voter. Well I will be in the next election so that I do my bit to keep the tories as far from No 10 as possible. I was a Lib Dem supporter but that didn't turn out too well did it

Miliband's perfomance on PMQs has been a lot better than they were, if nothing else he is a lot more confident now.

I have no real interest in doom mongers but an isolated Britain will be a lot weaker both financially and diplomatically than one within the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Reform? The EU is a corrupt, bloated mess of an institution.

If Miliband cannot defeat one of the worst Prime Minister's in British history, then that says more about him than Cameron.

What Gordon Brown? I'm no huge Tory fan (More libral, but not Lib dem as such. I don't belive in party politics) but "the worst Prime Minister's in British history"... Thats just silly anti Tory nonsense. Nothing will ever change in UK politics until people stop seeing in terms of red, yellow and blue and start looking at facts.

I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.

He was a very dour Scotsman, and couldn't smile without looking kinda creepy

Which makes him a bad prime minster because....?

Plus the guy was blind in one eye....

Palindrome wrote:
I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.

It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.

It might also have something to do with the fact that for large parts of the past 900+ years or so large parts of europe were trying to conquer/defeat Britain. That could raise your hackles right there.

 Ketara wrote:
It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking.

Its not as if the worlds economy tanked at the same time, he was also largely right in his approach to the aftermath of the Lehman brothers collapse http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk

OK he was unelected but if he had called a snap election after he came to power it is highly likely that he would have won. It seems to me that he has become a scapegoat due to lazy journalism and short sighted politicans (as if there is another kind).

I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a good prime minster (certainly not 'Dave') but it doesn't seem fair to claim that Gordon Brown was noticably bad.

 Ratbarf wrote:
It might also have something to do with the fact that for large parts of the past 900+ years or so large parts of europe were trying to conquer/defeat Britain. That could raise your hackles right there.

Lets be fair, Europe has spent the best part of the last 3000 years infighting in one way or another. Basicly the moment someone said "This is my land" someone else said "No, I want it" and we were fighting each other in basicly one ongoing fight right up until 1945.

Palindrome wrote:
I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.

Because the media needed a scapegoat for the financial crisis, and the Tories were using it as one of the reasons to elect Cameron. I recall that the Tories were using the fact that Britain had had two Scottish Prime Ministers in a row, and had stuck the country in a bad position as a result, it was time to stick an English one in to make everything better.

Who actually voted in the Tories anyway?

Da Boss wrote:

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Leave now, not after the next election David.

Quangos and the stupid human rights act have been the bane of this country for too long.

The human rights act only seems to apply to crooks and terrorists. So what about their victims, are they not human to, and require their rights and welfare to be taken into account as well?

The e.u says the crooks and the terrorists rights must come first, and our rights take a back seat to that (just look at all the treatment they get in prison while their victim/s are left with what?) And thats why it's a no on the e.u. for me.

The EU isn't the organisation for the European Court you are referencing. It's the council of europe. If you voted yourself out of the EU, you'd still be part of the council of Europe (which contains many countries not in the EU) and would still agree to be subject to it's rulings.

If you're going to have a strong opinion about something, it's worth making sure the facts are straight first, yeah?

You also fail to mention the many British people that this Act has helped over the years after their own legal system failed them. If you were innocent of something wouldn't you want the benefit of a fail safe that could save you? What you are forgeting is that the whole "innocent until guilty" is there for a purpose, it's there to stop the innocent getting stitched up. Yes it's a right pain in the arse when a terrorist gets let off, but a completely different story if you've been banged up for rape or murder and are innocent of this crime.

PS, slighty off topic, but still about the Tories...

Anybody see that the IMF have said perhaps our belt tightening might be going too far? Will be interesting to hear how they spin this as they usually have the IMF on their side. I'm sure that it will start with "people are missing understanding what the IMF are saying, they are still 100% behind us..."

Like our American cousins like to say about guns, "it's not the gun that kills, but the person holding it", the same applies to The Human Rights Act. If the police screw up with their evidence it's not the Act's fault that the terrorist gets off.

 Ketara wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
I have never understood why there was so much hostility to Gordon Brown.

It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.

Thankyou for posting this, Ketara. It means I don't have to.

Da Boss - The E.U court is still part of the corrupt E.U Council as it passes it's laws so is part of the problem.

The European Council is entirely seperate from the EU. It was also founded by Winston Churchill.

Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
The European Council is entirely seperate from the EU. It was also founded by Winston Churchill.

Still part of the problem.

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts.

I don't think its me that needs to do some research...

The Council of Europe is here to say, even Russia is a member.

Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.

Palindrome wrote:

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Our laws worked just fine until statues and acts (not actually law) came along and started letting the criminals out ( we already had a repeals service). It was innocent until proven guilty but I think you'l find it is the reverse thanks to E.U 'law' as on the continent it's guilty until proven innocent. Anyway I'm not going to argue the toss, please do your research into statues and acts.

I don't think its me that needs to do some research...

The Council of Europe is here to say, even Russia is a member.

Sorry, just felt that that was appropriate (beats the rolling dog).

Now find me a picture of David Cameron riding shirtless on a horse dammit.

The whole thing is a load of rubbish.

There are any number of more important problems than the EU. The economy, the war on terror, the environment, the housing crisis, the energy crisis, immigration, education, etc.

Cameron's proposal is that in 3 years if he wins the election he will think about a referendum on proposals regarding something he hasn't even begun to formulate.

Utter. Nonsense.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The whole thing is a load of rubbish.

There are any number of more important problems than the EU. The economy, the war on terror, the environment, the housing crisis, the energy crisis, immigration, education, etc.

Cameron's proposal is that in 3 years if he wins the election he will think about a referendum on proposals regarding something he hasn't even begun to formulate.

Utter. Nonsense.

Agreed, people care more about their sports team than their country. He will back out of the pledge or not give the BRITISH people a yes or no referendum and confuse the issue.

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.

The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.

My main concern about voting on the EU is that most people don't seem to know what it does and are being led by the irrational tabloid media who have managed to give things like 'human rights' a bad name, where as in fact, other than a minority of unfortunate cases, we are all a lot better off for having our human rights enforced and the trade that the EU brings. I see a lot of people moaning about the supposed evils of human rights, moaning about immigration, and then repeating a lot of those silly stories like the one about the EU forcing us to eat straight bananas. It's all incredibly short sighted, the EU protect a lot of rights in this country such as those covering working conditions, your hours and holidays, and leaving the EU wouldn't address things like that silly old human rights act either. The Tories are very keen to screw over workers and giving more power to employers, they're already eroding rights to access to unfair dismissal tribunals and extending the period for which you can be sacked without reason after starting a new job. Cameron is a weak man, his more conservative back benchers are getting out of his control and he's losing voters to further right wing parties like UKIP, so now he's trying to pander to those right wing ideals to shore up his own position as PM, at the expense of the well being of the country and the majority of the people. When the Tories get more powers to remove workers rights, beware.

Palindrome wrote:

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.

The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.

I thought the english did have the bill of rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

EDIT: If you notice... our founders stole some of that... they were the ORIGINAL Napster!

Themanwiththeplan: I'm not impressed by someone who can't even get the name of the court they are bashing right, sorry.

 whembly wrote:

I thought the english did have the bill of rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

That predates the United Kindom . I do know that the Tories tried to push through a real UK bill of rights recently but they didn't get very far.

I don't know the specifics, I am not a lawyer, but I find it incomprehensable that the subject matter experts failed to see such a massive loophole in the European convention on human rights for over 60 years yet some guy on a forum knows about it; especially someone who calls the Council of Europe the European Union Council.........

Palindrome wrote:

 Themanwiththeplan wrote:
Read the bill of rights and I think you'l find that any law passed by the E.U. court is unlawful in this country, and anyone carrying them out should be arrested for treason.

The UK doesn't have a bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights is a component part of the British Constitution, along with the Act of Union etc.

Because they do know about it and that's why they keep telling people that the bill of rights is not real (it applies to all provences aka canada, northern ireland and their like, please read it).

I may not spell properly (lol) or get the names right all the time, but your still got schooled

And yes that means we have to arrest every P.M since edward heath (proberly getting names wrong again) or who ever it was who first signed us up to europe for treason.

P.S Thanks Whembly

 Ketara wrote:
It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.

He was elected to the prime ministership by the members of his party. The same way every Prime Minister you've ever had has been elected.

The way people in countries with the Westminster system keep talking about popularly electing their Prime Ministers is very odd.

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
It was mainly because he was partially responsible for t he catastrophic damage him and his party did to the country, economically speaking. Oh, and the fact he was unelected to the position of PM. As for the EU, I'm more than a little dubious as to the benefits of membership. It's a costly self perpetuating behemoth of a peace project gone wrong. The European common market has obvious benefits, but the unwieldy superstate wannabe? Not so much.

He was elected to the prime ministership by the members of his party. The same way every Prime Minister you've ever had has been elected.

Actually, I'm not sure he was elected by the party membership. It was more of an arrangement between cabals.