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.
Ketara wrote: .....is surprisingly negative in light of your former optimism regaridng the EU. This country is one of the most desirable places in the world to live in terms of human rights, worker rights, and citizen benefits. It didn't get that way by accident, and it certainly did not get that way thanks to the EU! One thing I've found quite distasteful throughout the entire Brexit saga is the portrayal of the EU as being the saviour of the average citizen against the cruel excesses of Government. Our hard won rights were won from centuries of struggle against the dominant elite. Not from a piece of human rights legislation emanating from Brussels!
You get good governments, and you get bad governments. You get ones that defend the country against Nazism, and ones that advocate using planes to put terror into the heart of the colonies. Ones that add all sorts of worker rights, but also cripple the economy. Ones that bring in things like the Freedom of Information Act, but also the Terorism Act. Good and bad juxtaposed together. It is rare you get a government that does nothing but bad things, almost as rare as you get one that does nothing but good things.
Whatever you might make of the various civil servants and politicians who funnel endlessly through Whitehall, one thing tends to pervade the majority of them as much as a sense of self-interest, and that's a desire to try and make the country a better place. It might be out of a misplaced optimism, a selfish desire to leave a good legacy, or out of some strange mental instability. Some of them will succeed in that, and some will fail. Depending on your political beliefs, any individual point or policy could sit in either box.
But ultimately, the trend in this country has been (in my opinion) a good one, and we often get too wrapped up in the negative news of the 'now' to appreciate that fact. The EU is not responsible for that trend, but rather the collective democratic will of the British people and those we elect into power. And I have faith in that, far moreso than I ever have done the opaque machinations of foreign diplomats eeling their way through Brussels. You are free to put your faith in people like Juncker, but you'll have to forgive me if I refrain from doing so.
The problem is, that the EU did act as a "third" house, restricting the excess' that Tory governments will inflict if left unrestricted. It's hardly a coincidence that Tory right wing euro-sceptics have been an agitating, and highly corrosive, element in the conservative party for decades, and that UKIP is packed to the brim with right wingers.
They hated the "interference" of the EU in their ability to create a free market, neo liberal, paradise. They have campaigned hard for decades, and have insiduously taken over the print and broadcast media, used out riders to lead the population to more right wing way of thinking, and have done absolutely everything they can to portray the EU as some sort of weird, incompetent, beurocracy that does nothing but push unfathomable rules onto plucky British business.
Now they have achieved their aim, in doing so they've fractured the country almost irreparably, forced us from a mostly beneficial arrangement, and ensured the opposition is in complete disarray. We will now have to endure years of Tory politics and lies, and it will not be pleasant for anyone not cushioned by substantial wealth.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
They have had the data saying it's a problem for more than 6 months and this link above is the reply to an EU parlimentary question to the EU commission.
So basically the EU is doing much the same as the UK government. The UK has explicitly said that they would ban microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning products, but not perhaps in other applications such as biochemical reagents, after a consultation period ending in 2017 while the EU has not announced an end point nor a desired conclusion to its consultation but which is highly likely to have a similar result.
I'm afraid that you are going to have to explain to me exactly how this constitutes the "EU refusing to pass legislation"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/03 12:32:35
For me, one of the most annoying things about BREXIT, and I'm not blaming people on dakka, is this belief that free from the EU, the Tories will now be able to unleash a neo liberal, anti-trade union, bash the workers, scrap human rights, right-wing free for all!
This can happen, but only if the British people let them. We don't have to vote in the Tories every election.
BREXIT and its aftermath is not the preserve of the Conservative party. The Left could get its act together and offer the UK something different.
Things, political decisions, only happen in this country if people allow them to pass.
I remember the Poll tax riots, and the change that brought, including the downfall of one Margaret Thatcher...
"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
The problem is, that the EU did act as a "third" house, restricting the excess' that Tory governments will inflict if left unrestricted.It's hardly a coincidence that Tory right wing euro-sceptics have been an agitating, and highly corrosive, element in the conservative party for decades, and that UKIP is packed to the brim with right wingers.
They hated the "interference" of the EU in their ability to create a free market, neo liberal, paradise.
You are aware that the EU is also a free-market neo-liberal paradise to a large extent? Before we joined the EU, there weren't quite so many 'base your corporation in Ireland for reduced tax' scams and dodges, the movement of capital as a result of EU membership has been nothing short of scandalous. The EU also completely prevents any form of state aid or nationalisation, half of Corbyn's policies would have actually been illegal under EU law (one of the reasons he's been campaigning against it decades and barely raised a whisper at us leaving).
We implemented the Equal Pay Act in 1970, prior to the EU. Sex, race, and discrimination laws? We already had them. It is true that these sorts of laws have been strengthened whilst we have been part of the EU, but that's not /because we were part of the EU, but rather due to the evolution of attitudes within our country.
The strength of the EU came at the cost of less power for our national body. That's how separation of powers work. It is a matter of opinion, and clearly yours differs to mine, but I prefer that power to be vested in my own government as opposed to Brussels, for better or worse. Why? Because as stated, I think this country, generally speaking, ambles on doing quite well for itself, and has made itself a bastion of liberty and a good place to live on its own accord. Not because of the EU, but because of the people who live here. Stuff goes wrong, but stuff also goes right. Governments do bad, but they also do good. Some do more of one or the other, which is which changes depending on your perspective. But I'm generally quite happy to live here, and having actually lived under a murderous tyrannical regime where the police can just make you vanish, see the frothing fearmongering from so many about how evil the Tory party is as absolutely ludicrous.
Not only that, Ketara, look at the UK's history of liberty and struggle: Chartism, Suffragettes, the Diggers, The levellers, Keir Hardie and the founding of the Labour party etc etc. All these predate the EU by decades or centuries...
Liberty and freedom is in the DNA of this nation - it's our birthright, and we don't need the EU to fight for us in this regard.
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, one of the most annoying things about BREXIT, and I'm not blaming people on dakka, is this belief that free from the EU, the Tories will now be able to unleash a neo liberal, anti-trade union, bash the workers, scrap human rights, right-wing free for all!
This can happen, but only if the British people let them. We don't have to vote in the Tories every election....
...and what's stopping the Tories, right now, from enacting whatever policies they wish? We've already seen the proposals and changes coming through, 7 day NHS and British bill of rights are just 2 examples of ideals being either touted, or forced through. With a Labour party acting as opposition only to itself, exactly what is there to stop the Tories doing whatever they want?
To them, Brexit is a blank cheque mandate, no on actually stipulated what it meant, so they are able to push it anyway which suits them best, and we will not get a vote on whatever it is they decide to do.if that doesn't make you nervous, then I'm not sure what would do.
We won't have an opportunity to enact our democratic will again until the next GE, by which time it will be far too late, unless you're advocating a riot over every policy decision we dislike?
As to the poll tax riots, it took the forced introduction of a hateful and overwhelmingly unfair taxation system for people to actually do something, most policy decision is going to be smaller scale and cumulative from now on.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, one of the most annoying things about BREXIT, and I'm not blaming people on dakka, is this belief that free from the EU, the Tories will now be able to unleash a neo liberal, anti-trade union, bash the workers, scrap human rights, right-wing free for all!
This can happen, but only if the British people let them. We don't have to vote in the Tories every election....
...and what's stopping the Tories, right now, from enacting whatever policies they wish? We've already seen the proposals and changes coming through, 7 day NHS and British bill of rights are just 2 examples of ideals being either touted, or forced through. With a Labour party acting as opposition only to itself, exactly what is there to stop the Tories doing whatever they want?
To them, Brexit is a blank cheque mandate, no on actually stipulated what it meant, so they are able to push it anyway which suits them best, and we will not get a vote on whatever it is they decide to do.if that doesn't make you nervous, then I'm not sure what would do.
We won't have an opportunity to enact our democratic will again until the next GE, by which time it will be far too late, unless you're advocating a riot over every policy decision we dislike?
As to the poll tax riots, it took the forced introduction of a hateful and overwhelmingly unfair taxation system for people to actually do something, most policy decision is going to be smaller scale and cumulative from now on.
It's not the fault of the British people that the Labour party are a shambles, and you're also forgetting that everything passed by Parliament can be reversed by a future parliament. These things are not set in stone...
"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
The problem is, that the EU did act as a "third" house, restricting the excess' that Tory governments will inflict if left unrestricted.It's hardly a coincidence that Tory right wing euro-sceptics have been an agitating, and highly corrosive, element in the conservative party for decades, and that UKIP is packed to the brim with right wingers.
They hated the "interference" of the EU in their ability to create a free market, neo liberal, paradise.
You are aware that the EU is also a free-market neo-liberal paradise to a large extent? Before we joined the EU, there weren't quite so many 'base your corporation in Ireland for reduced tax' scams and dodges, the movement of capital as a result of EU membership has been nothing short of scandalous. The EU also completely prevents any form of state aid or nationalisation, half of Corbyn's policies would have actually been illegal under EU law (one of the reasons he's been campaigning against it decades and barely raised a whisper at us leaving).
We implemented the Equal Pay Act in 1970, prior to the EU. Sex, race, and discrimination laws? We already had them. It is true that these sorts of laws have been strengthened whilst we have been part of the EU, but that's not /because we were part of the EU, but rather due to the evolution of attitudes within our country.
The strength of the EU came at the cost of less power for our national body. That's how separation of powers work. It is a matter of opinion, and clearly yours differs to mine, but I prefer that power to be vested in my own government as opposed to Brussels, for better or worse. Why? Because as stated, I think this country, generally speaking, ambles on doing quite well for itself, and has made itself a bastion of liberty and a good place to live on its own accord. Not because of the EU, but because of the people who live here. Stuff goes wrong, but stuff also goes right. Governments do bad, but they also do good. Some do more of one or the other, which is which changes depending on your perspective. But I'm generally quite happy to live here, and having actually lived under a murderous tyrannical regime where the police can just make you vanish, see the frothing fearmongering from so many about how evil the Tory party is as absolutely ludicrous.
I see, because other places have it worse, we should just suck it up? That basically were an OK bunch, and generally things work out all right? That's your argument? Because we don't have a police state, yet, we should not carefully monitor, and be cautious of, a right wing government?
I prefer to act thanks, and coming from a family who endured the troubles in Northern Ireland, you are not the only one who can chuck that sort of thing about.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, one of the most annoying things about BREXIT, and I'm not blaming people on dakka, is this belief that free from the EU, the Tories will now be able to unleash a neo liberal, anti-trade union, bash the workers, scrap human rights, right-wing free for all!
This can happen, but only if the British people let them. We don't have to vote in the Tories every election....
...and what's stopping the Tories, right now, from enacting whatever policies they wish? We've already seen the proposals and changes coming through, 7 day NHS and British bill of rights are just 2 examples of ideals being either touted, or forced through. With a Labour party acting as opposition only to itself, exactly what is there to stop the Tories doing whatever they want?
To them, Brexit is a blank cheque mandate, no on actually stipulated what it meant, so they are able to push it anyway which suits them best, and we will not get a vote on whatever it is they decide to do.if that doesn't make you nervous, then I'm not sure what would do.
We won't have an opportunity to enact our democratic will again until the next GE, by which time it will be far too late, unless you're advocating a riot over every policy decision we dislike?
As to the poll tax riots, it took the forced introduction of a hateful and overwhelmingly unfair taxation system for people to actually do something, most policy decision is going to be smaller scale and cumulative from now on.
It's not the fault of the British people that the Labour party are a shambles, and you're also forgetting that everything passed by Parliament can be reversed by a future parliament. These things are not set in stone...
They're not set in stone, but sometimes they are, and sometimes it's expedient for an incoming government to distract the populace from previous legislation as it benefits them. There's also the fact that we still have to put up with this sort of right wing rubbish in the interim. I'm sure your ideal of vote them out in 4 years is of great comfort to those enduring the bedroom tax, and cuts to disability benefit right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/03 13:20:29
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I'm sure your ideal of vote them out in 4 years is of great comfort to those enduring the bedroom tax, and cuts to disability benefit right now.
For the record, I think it's a pretty wretched and disgusting thing to do to those poor people who are suffering from these policies, but like you say, short of rioting, what can you do? At least IDS is out the door, small comfort though that is.
"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
I see, because other places have it worse, we should just suck it up? That basically were an OK bunch, and generally things work out all right? That's your argument? Because we don't have a police state, yet, we should not carefully monitor, and be cautious of, a right wing government?
No, I'm saying that trying to outsource responsibility for the liberty and wellbeing of your nation to some opaque poorly run European entity that wants to be a superstate is a bad idea. Monitor? Sure. That's what the press is for, that's what the general election is for, that's what ultimately, you and I are for.
But the amount of 'OMG I'M LEAVING THE COUNTRY', and 'evil corrupt Tory pigs out to feth over the country' vitriol is just downright embarassing, almost as much as the strange concept that we here in this country actually need Europe to stick up for ourselves and get the rights we need.
I prefer to act thanks, and coming from a family who endured the troubles in Northern Ireland, you are not the only one who can chuck that sort of thing about.
Robert Mugabe makes what happened in Northern Ireland look like a playground squabble. Gukurahundi, the mob occupation of property, the torture the police do, etcetc. Not that it's a competition, but my point is that the amount of hysterical fearmongering I see coming from liberals about the evils of the Tory party just seems like ridiculous hyperbole when you've actually seen what a real dictatorial system can do. First World problems and all that. Whatever damage any Tory party policy can do can usually be rectified in the following decade if necessary, and they usually do a number of good things along with it. Because that's politics and life in general. You'll never have a perfect system, or more importantly, you'll never have a system that everyone thinks is perfect.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/03 13:34:09
I see, because other places have it worse, we should just suck it up? That basically were an OK bunch, and generally things work out all right? That's your argument? Because we don't have a police state, yet, we should not carefully monitor, and be cautious of, a right wing government?
No, I'm saying that trying to outsource responsibility for the liberty and wellbeing of your nation to some opaque poorly run European entity that wants to be a superstate is a bad idea. Monitor? Sure. That's what the press is for, that's what the general election is for, that's what ultimately, you and I are for.
But the amount of 'OMG I'M LEAVING THE COUNTRY', and 'evil corrupt Tory pigs out to feth over the country' vitriol is just downright embarassing, almost as much as the strange concept that we here in this country actually need Europe to stick up for ourselves and get the rights we need.
I prefer to act thanks, and coming from a family who endured the troubles in Northern Ireland, you are not the only one who can chuck that sort of thing about.
Robert Mugabe makes what happened in Northern Ireland look like a playground squabble. Gukurahundi, the mob occupation of property, the torture the police do, etcetc. Not that it's a competition,
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
Ketara wrote: .... but my point is that the amount of hysterical fearmongering I see coming from liberals about the evils of the Tory party just seems like ridiculous hyperbole when you've actually seen what a real dictatorial system can do. First World problems and all that. Whatever damage any Tory party policy can do can usually be rectified in the following decade if necessary, and they usually do a number of good things along with it. Because that's politics and life in general. You'll never have a perfect system, or more importantly, you'll never have a system that everyone thinks is perfect.
First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
...First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
You're mistaking perception of scale for dismissal and getting outraged accordingly. People do suffer under Tory Governments. People also suffer under Labour Governments. They suffer under nationalist governments and under liberal governments. There is always suffering, sometimes due to the actions of governments, and sometimes not. One could hardly place the Northern Ireland affair at the feet of any individual government, yet many had to deal with it. Some did, some well, some badly. The flip side of the coin is that you're always measuring which was which with the benefit of hindsight, and with a lack of knowledge of what the alternative result could have been.
When I say that Northern Ireland was virtually nothing in terms of suffering compared to the Holocaust, I'm stating a fact. I'm not trivialising one or amplifying the other. Likewise, when I say that the suffering of people under the Tory Government is virtually nothing compared to the day to day suffering endured by most of the population of this planet, I'm also stating a fact. The Tories/Atos scandal hurt many households. But compared to starving on the steet or dying young, having a reduced government grant is small potatoes. I'm not minimising the hardship that reduced grant can cause, I'm simply aware of how amazingly unusual it is on this planet that a disabled person actually gets a grant. Meanwhile, under the same Government as caused that issue, poor lower class people who had to take out commercial bank loans and scrimp and suffer to get and pay off a postgraduate qualification are now able to get a far less taxing student loan from the Government.
The point here is that things are swings and roundabouts in any system. Sure, the EU helped to solidify certain types of rights, but they were also responsible for some fairly egregious excesses. At the end of the day, things will probably keep getting better (from my perspective) generally, that's been the historical trend. Some things will sometimes get worse for some people, other things will get better. Sometimes, the two will doubtless swap places. I'm confident however, that Britain will generally be okay, and that that's thanks to the people who live here, and not the EU.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/09/03 14:11:10
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
...First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
You're mistaking perception of scale for dismissal and getting outraged accordingly. ......When I say that Northern Ireland was virtually nothing in terms of suffering compared to the Holocaust, I'm stating a fact. I'm not trivialising one or amplifying the other. .....
Are you kidding me? You have just stated that the suffering of the people of Northern Ireland is nothing compared to the Holocaust? I would genuinely like you to go to Belfast and repeat that statement to anyone.
Outrage, I am absolutely bloody livid!
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
...First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
You're mistaking perception of scale for dismissal and getting outraged accordingly. ......When I say that Northern Ireland was virtually nothing in terms of suffering compared to the Holocaust, I'm stating a fact. I'm not trivialising one or amplifying the other. .....
Are you kidding me? You have just stated that the suffering of the people of Northern Ireland is nothing compared to the Holocaust? I would genuinely like you to go to Belfast and repeat that statement to anyone.
Outrage, I am absolutely bloody livid!
Not to mention that you can use that kind of logic to ignore basically anything as it isn't big enough to care about.
For example "The genocide in Rwanda was nowhere near as big as the Holocaust so it obviously wasn't that big a deal."
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
...First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
You're mistaking perception of scale for dismissal and getting outraged accordingly. ......When I say that Northern Ireland was virtually nothing in terms of suffering compared to the Holocaust, I'm stating a fact. I'm not trivialising one or amplifying the other. .....
Are you kidding me? You have just stated that the suffering of the people of Northern Ireland is nothing compared to the Holocaust? I would genuinely like you to go to Belfast and repeat that statement to anyone.
Outrage, I am absolutely bloody livid!
I'm sorry to hear my statements have caused you emotional distress. There is no intent to trivialise, as I have repeatedly stated, and will state again. Perhaps it was the 'playground squabble' comment that made you think I was leaning in that direction? If so, it was just a poor choice of words.
I am simply indicating as to the scale involved, both numerically, and in the moral atrocity of the acts committed. A violent assault is tragic, as is manslaughter, as is murder, as is mass murder, as is genocide. Both are tragic, but murder does not entail as much suffering as genocide. Compared to the Holocaust, Northern Ireland, whilst tragic for those involved, does not begin to approach the quantitative scale or harshness. This does not detract from Northern Ireland, because at the end of the day, what does scale up to Holocaust? Precious little. It is not an insult to be aware of the differences involved.
You have my sympathy, however, thousands of people were killed in Northern Ireland, tens of thousands were injured and many more were scarred. That is NOT a "playground squabble". Certainly not for those who lived through it. Have a word with yourself.
...First world problems is also deeply insulting to those enduring REAL hardship under our incumbent government, are you just writing this stuff to get people riled up?
It bloody well seems like it.
You're mistaking perception of scale for dismissal and getting outraged accordingly. ......When I say that Northern Ireland was virtually nothing in terms of suffering compared to the Holocaust, I'm stating a fact. I'm not trivialising one or amplifying the other. .....
Are you kidding me? You have just stated that the suffering of the people of Northern Ireland is nothing compared to the Holocaust? I would genuinely like you to go to Belfast and repeat that statement to anyone.
Outrage, I am absolutely bloody livid!
Not to mention that you can use that kind of logic to ignore basically anything as it isn't big enough to care about.
For example "The genocide in Rwanda was nowhere near as big as the Holocaust so it obviously wasn't that big a deal."
Hardly. I didn't adopt a position even remotely akin to the one you're currently characterising. I'm not saying, 'All suffering is relative therefore who cares'. I'm saying that characterising the suffering caused by the Tory as being the greatest threat to mankind since Hitler is hyperbole, and that generally speaking, these things all tend to even out in the end. One has to adopt a miniscule of perspective in these things, otherwise every time Margaret Thatcher threw away a half used notepaper, it qualifies as an environmental disaster.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/03 14:49:14
Where in this thread did people argue that the Tories were the greatest threat to mankind since Hitler?
It was argued that without the balance of EU law they would be able to bring in laws that could cause harm to people in the UK. The counter argument was that that was okay because X years down the line there could be an election and if the opposition party got in then they might repeal those laws.
But if there was an EU law which would have prevented the law from being written in the first place then the people who suffered because of that law for X years, without a guarantee that it would end, would not have had to undergo such hardship.
And also, what purpose did bringing the Holocaust in to the conversation serve?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/03 14:55:20
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Where in this thread did people argue that the Tories were the greatest threat to mankind since Hitler?
Read back. I never said anyone had, I was referring more to general comments I've seen in the media, my personal facebook feed, etc. This particular tangent is spinning off one fairly irrelevant comment to the sum of what I was saying.
It was argued that without the balance of EU law they would be able to bring in laws that could cause harm to people in the UK. The counter argument was that that was okay because X years down the line there could be an election and if the opposition party got in then they might repeal those laws.
But if there was an EU law which would have prevented the law from being written in the first place then the people who suffered because of that law for X years, without a guarantee that it would end, would not have had to undergo such hardship.
And what about if the Uk could have passed a law which would also have eliminated that suffering? Or if the EU has passed, or will pass a law that will cause suffering? You can't play pick and mix and say, 'Well staying in the EU would have stopped this from happening' without having to acknowledge that you have to take into account the actions of the EU in their entirety. You also have to take into account the ultimate fact that the EU is not our day to day government, so trying to invest them with the powers to limit that government has its own upsides and downsides.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/03 15:18:22
AlmightyWalrus wrote:You said that the EU has refused to pass such legislation. Not having passed it is not the same as refusing to pass it. *insert snarky comment*
The Commission recognises the threat that marine litter in general and microplastics in particular represent for the marine environment, marine animals and potentially for human health.
The occurrence and persistence of plastic debris and microplastics in the marine environment and waterways is an issue of increasing public debate, at both European and international levels. As such, the Commission is following international developments, including the bill recently passed in the United States related to the ban of microbeads in cosmetics.
The Commission welcomes voluntary commitments by the cosmetics industry with regard to the reduction of microplastics. With regard to its own action the Commission is currently examining — on the basis of a recently published study made available(1) early in 2016 — if and what actions are necessary to reduce microplastics from various sources in the aquatic (freshwater and marine) environment.
That is the position of the eu comission since mid-july even though it's a known problem and has been banned in the US since the beginning of january.
The eu doesn't need a vote to refuse to do something - that's the way it's set up.
Kilkrazy wrote:The EU not yet having acted is not the same as the EU refusing to act, and this issue didn't feature at all in the campaigning.
You are groping for a post facto justification for your decision.
They have had the data saying it's a problem for more than 6 months and this link above is the reply to an EU parlimentary question to the EU commission.
So basically the EU is doing much the same as the UK government. The UK has explicitly said that they would ban microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning products, but not perhaps in other applications such as biochemical reagents, after a consultation period ending in 2017 while the EU has not announced an end point nor a desired conclusion to its consultation but which is highly likely to have a similar result.
I'm afraid that you are going to have to explain to me exactly how this constitutes the "EU refusing to pass legislation"
See the answer for the other two above, but also..
Do biochemical reagents get disposed of in the public drainage system? i don't know.
I do find it odd that there would be a need for exfoliating microbeads in something used to test for traces of microbal by-products. could you elaborate? - it's weird enough to be intresting is all.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
AlmightyWalrus wrote:You said that the EU has refused to pass such legislation. Not having passed it is not the same as refusing to pass it. *insert snarky comment*
The Commission recognises the threat that marine litter in general and microplastics in particular represent for the marine environment, marine animals and potentially for human health.
The occurrence and persistence of plastic debris and microplastics in the marine environment and waterways is an issue of increasing public debate, at both European and international levels. As such, the Commission is following international developments, including the bill recently passed in the United States related to the ban of microbeads in cosmetics.
The Commission welcomes voluntary commitments by the cosmetics industry with regard to the reduction of microplastics. With regard to its own action the Commission is currently examining — on the basis of a recently published study made available(1) early in 2016 — if and what actions are necessary to reduce microplastics from various sources in the aquatic (freshwater and marine) environment.
That is the position of the eu comission since mid-july even though it's a known problem and has been banned in the US since the beginning of january.
The eu doesn't need a vote to refuse to do something - that's the way it's set up.
Kilkrazy wrote:The EU not yet having acted is not the same as the EU refusing to act, and this issue didn't feature at all in the campaigning.
You are groping for a post facto justification for your decision.
They have had the data saying it's a problem for more than 6 months and this link above is the reply to an EU parlimentary question to the EU commission.
So basically the EU is doing much the same as the UK government. The UK has explicitly said that they would ban microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning products, but not perhaps in other applications such as biochemical reagents, after a consultation period ending in 2017 while the EU has not announced an end point nor a desired conclusion to its consultation but which is highly likely to have a similar result.
I'm afraid that you are going to have to explain to me exactly how this constitutes the "EU refusing to pass legislation"
See the answer for the other two above, but also..
Do biochemical reagents get disposed of in the public drainage system? i don't know.
I do find it odd that there would be a need for exfoliating microbeads in something used to test for traces of microbal by-products. could you elaborate? - it's weird enough to be intresting is all.
MY GOD IT'S BEEN SIX WHOLE WEEKS DURING THE MAIN HOLIDAY SEASON ACROSS EUROPE WHEN THE EU HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF UK REFERENDUM AND THEY'VE DONE NOTHING ETERNAL TYRANNY ALERT OMG111!!!ONE
Kilkrazy wrote: Is Melania Trump a "public figure" according to the legal meaning?
I had never heard of her until she delivered the controversial speech at the RNC a few weeks ago. Trump has had several wives, which reduces their individual "fame". I am more familiar with Ivana, to be honest, though as I am a Brit perhaps this doesn't signify. They will be more concerned with their reputation in the USA, of course.
The Trumps "are famous", so yeah, Melania is a "public figure".
Now, this was filed in a Maryland court... so, I'm not sure how that works with a UK company.
I am simply indicating as to the scale involved, both numerically, and in the moral atrocity of the acts committed. A violent assault is tragic, as is manslaughter, as is murder, as is mass murder, as is genocide. Both are tragic, but murder does not entail as much suffering as genocide. Compared to the Holocaust, Northern Ireland, whilst tragic for those involved, does not begin to approach the quantitative scale or harshness. This does not detract from Northern Ireland, because at the end of the day, what does scale up to Holocaust? Precious little. It is not an insult to be aware of the differences involved.
I find tense sort of comments cold and lacking empathy in truth. There is no difference between a rape and murder of one person or thousands. The impact on each individual is the same. It's just we are becoming more desensitised to the suffering of one person vs the many. But for each person there is no difference. The only difference between the holocaust and one person being subjected to the same is that one is implemented by the state and the other by an individual, but to the people it affects there is no difference at all. In some ways this highlights a distinct difference in views, with left and liberals being concerned with the consideration of individuals and the right being concerned with the consideration of the 'state'.
In response to the earlier comment, yes I am positive as to what governments can achieve but I have seen too many (and still are) right wing Tory governments favouring their own 'nest' than any real interest in improving society as a whole. But then that is not a surprise given they are favoured and supported by the vastly wealthy that will do anything to remain at the top. In some ways this is why I am supportive of the EU, it is made up of many nations that have differing views. That means by necessity there are compromises and that makes the decisions better for everyone not just the few; which is why there are many tories that see the EU as an enemy because it constrains their ability to run roughshod over the populace a a whole.
That is the position of the eu comission since mid-july even though it's a known problem and has been banned in the US since the beginning of january.
The eu doesn't need a vote to refuse to do something - that's the way it's set up.
That's a bit of a naive way of looking at things. Maybe they are just trying to figure out the best way of approaching the issue without causing greater damage. Collating scientific data and evidence of the impacts takes time. A good example of where things can go wrong with is with biofuels. When there was a push to have biofuels as percentage of vehicle fuel there was no restrictions where it could come from. Almost overnight then farmers started using food crops for fuel as it was more valuable. This drove up food prices and combined this resulted in massive push to clear forested land to make more food and biofuels. From a perspective of replacing some petroleum based fuels with biofuels it was a success, but from a biodiversity perspective it was a disaster. Sometimes reading a daily mail headline and acting on it is not the right response - but then we know the tories don't like experts (probably because they ask to many questions of their hair brained ideas like shooting badgers and dredging rivers, neither which will solve the issues as they intend).
Do biochemical reagents get disposed of in the public drainage system? i don't know.
I do find it odd that there would be a need for exfoliating microbeads in something used to test for traces of microbal by-products. could you elaborate? - it's weird enough to be intresting is all.
Generally large scale biochemical industries wouldn't be able to discharge untreated waste because the foul drainage (I.e. That which goes direct to sewage treatment plants) wouldn't be designed to handle it. However many companies are still allowed to discharge to foul if they have permission. The problem is that treatment plants (in the uk) are only really designed to handle human waste sewage rather than chemicals but can handle other things like oils. Therefore some of these chemicals from households simply wash through the process plant. For instant phosphates (from washing powder which makes your whites look white) can get through. Another issue is oestrogen from fertility treatments; this is in the urine and has been shown to screw up male fish and feminise them making them sterile with all the associated implications. I've also read that because it gets back into drinking water (it's natural to humans so not poisonous per se) that it could affect men, but last time I read up on it the data was sketchy because trying to determine a cause and effect is difficult.
As for other uses of micro beads as others have said they have a large surface area so they are ideal for delivering 'large' quantities of chemicals to a specific location (note tests on nano particles are also being tried especially for cancer treatments). Things like tablets aren't that efficient and can result in quite a bit of biochemical wastage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/03 23:06:03
"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
I find tense sort of comments cold and lacking empathy in truth.....
It's probably more down to my occupation. I spend a lot of time as a historian contemplating large sweeps of time, and countless genocides/oppressions. Within that, the professional method of analysis and writing involved is (and indeed, has to be) dispassionate and examine things from as detached/unbiased a viewpoint as possible. It's not a signal that I do not care or lack empathy, but rather the writing style itself and the form in which I've been trained to dissect information.
I can understand and accept why that may often come off as being cold-hearted to those with a personal aspect to any given subject of discussion; frankly I find it rare I can find anyone capable of discussing even contemporary politics without that personal edge intruding.
In some ways this highlights a distinct difference in views, with left and liberals being concerned with the consideration of individuals and the right being concerned the right being concerned with the consideration of the 'state'.
I consider myself as liberal as I do right wing. Amusingly, most liberals tends to accuse me of being an natural authoritarian tory, whilst the actual tories consider me a bleeding heart liberal. Usually because I argue with both, and both automatically assume if you ain't with 'em, you're against them.
In response to the earlier comment, yes I am positive as to what governments can achieve but I have seen too many (and still are) right wing Tory governments favouring their own 'nest' than any real interest in improving society as a whole. But then that is not a surprise given they are favoured and supported by the vastly wealthy that will do anything to remain at the top. In some ways this is why I am supportive of the EU, it is made up of many nations that have differing views. That means by necessity there are compromises and that makes the decisions better for everyone not just the few; which is why there are many tories that see the EU as an enemy because it constrains their ability to run roughshod over the populace a a whole.
I knew there was a cynic in there somewhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/04 00:08:52
AlmightyWalrus wrote:You said that the EU has refused to pass such legislation. Not having passed it is not the same as refusing to pass it. *insert snarky comment*
The Commission recognises the threat that marine litter in general and microplastics in particular represent for the marine environment, marine animals and potentially for human health. The occurrence and persistence of plastic debris and microplastics in the marine environment and waterways is an issue of increasing public debate, at both European and international levels. As such, the Commission is following international developments, including the bill recently passed in the United States related to the ban of microbeads in cosmetics. The Commission welcomes voluntary commitments by the cosmetics industry with regard to the reduction of microplastics. With regard to its own action the Commission is currently examining — on the basis of a recently published study made available(1) early in 2016 — if and what actions are necessary to reduce microplastics from various sources in the aquatic (freshwater and marine) environment.
That is the position of the eu comission since mid-july even though it's a known problem and has been banned in the US since the beginning of january. The eu doesn't need a vote to refuse to do something - that's the way it's set up.
Kilkrazy wrote:The EU not yet having acted is not the same as the EU refusing to act, and this issue didn't feature at all in the campaigning.
You are groping for a post facto justification for your decision.
They have had the data saying it's a problem for more than 6 months and this link above is the reply to an EU parlimentary question to the EU commission.
So basically the EU is doing much the same as the UK government. The UK has explicitly said that they would ban microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning products, but not perhaps in other applications such as biochemical reagents, after a consultation period ending in 2017 while the EU has not announced an end point nor a desired conclusion to its consultation but which is highly likely to have a similar result.
I'm afraid that you are going to have to explain to me exactly how this constitutes the "EU refusing to pass legislation"
See the answer for the other two above, but also.. Do biochemical reagents get disposed of in the public drainage system? i don't know. I do find it odd that there would be a need for exfoliating microbeads in something used to test for traces of microbal by-products. could you elaborate? - it's weird enough to be intresting is all.
MY GOD IT'S BEEN SIX WHOLE WEEKS DURING THE MAIN HOLIDAY SEASON ACROSS EUROPE WHEN THE EU HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF UK REFERENDUM AND THEY'VE DONE NOTHING ETERNAL TYRANNY ALERT OMG111!!!ONE
I am simply indicating as to the scale involved, both numerically, and in the moral atrocity of the acts committed. A violent assault is tragic, as is manslaughter, as is murder, as is mass murder, as is genocide. Both are tragic, but murder does not entail as much suffering as genocide. Compared to the Holocaust, Northern Ireland, whilst tragic for those involved, does not begin to approach the quantitative scale or harshness. This does not detract from Northern Ireland, because at the end of the day, what does scale up to Holocaust? Precious little. It is not an insult to be aware of the differences involved.
I find tense sort of comments cold and lacking empathy in truth. There is no difference between a rape and murder of one person or thousands. The impact on each individual is the same. It's just we are becoming more desensitised to the suffering of one person vs the many. But for each person there is no difference. The only difference between the holocaust and one person being subjected to the same is that one is implemented by the state and the other by an individual, but to the people it affects there is no difference at all. In some ways this highlights a distinct difference in views, with left and liberals being concerned with the consideration of individuals and the right being concerned with the consideration of the 'state'.
In response to the earlier comment, yes I am positive as to what governments can achieve but I have seen too many (and still are) right wing Tory governments favouring their own 'nest' than any real interest in improving society as a whole. But then that is not a surprise given they are favoured and supported by the vastly wealthy that will do anything to remain at the top. In some ways this is why I am supportive of the EU, it is made up of many nations that have differing views. That means by necessity there are compromises and that makes the decisions better for everyone not just the few; which is why there are many tories that see the EU as an enemy because it constrains their ability to run roughshod over the populace a a whole.
That is the position of the eu comission since mid-july even though it's a known problem and has been banned in the US since the beginning of january. The eu doesn't need a vote to refuse to do something - that's the way it's set up.
That's a bit of a naive way of looking at things. Maybe they are just trying to figure out the best way of approaching the issue without causing greater damage. Collating scientific data and evidence of the impacts takes time. A good example of where things can go wrong with is with biofuels. When there was a push to have biofuels as percentage of vehicle fuel there was no restrictions where it could come from. Almost overnight then farmers started using food crops for fuel as it was more valuable. This drove up food prices and combined this resulted in massive push to clear forested land to make more food and biofuels. From a perspective of replacing some petroleum based fuels with biofuels it was a success, but from a biodiversity perspective it was a disaster. Sometimes reading a daily mail headline and acting on it is not the right response - but then we know the tories don't like experts (probably because they ask to many questions of their hair brained ideas like shooting badgers and dredging rivers, neither which will solve the issues as they intend).
Do biochemical reagents get disposed of in the public drainage system? i don't know. I do find it odd that there would be a need for exfoliating microbeads in something used to test for traces of microbal by-products. could you elaborate? - it's weird enough to be intresting is all.
Generally large scale biochemical industries wouldn't be able to discharge untreated waste because the foul drainage (I.e. That which goes direct to sewage treatment plants) wouldn't be designed to handle it. However many companies are still allowed to discharge to foul if they have permission. The problem is that treatment plants (in the uk) are only really designed to handle human waste sewage rather than chemicals but can handle other things like oils. Therefore some of these chemicals from households simply wash through the process plant. For instant phosphates (from washing powder which makes your whites look white) can get through. Another issue is oestrogen from fertility treatments; this is in the urine and has been shown to screw up male fish and feminise them making them sterile with all the associated implications. I've also read that because it gets back into drinking water (it's natural to humans so not poisonous per se) that it could affect men, but last time I read up on it the data was sketchy because trying to determine a cause and effect is difficult.
As for other uses of micro beads as others have said they have a large surface area so they are ideal for delivering 'large' quantities of chemicals to a specific location (note tests on nano particles are also being tried especially for cancer treatments). Things like tablets aren't that efficient and can result in quite a bit of biochemical wastage.
Cheers for that, so a company could possibly get away with dumping the remaining pile into the drain. thats a bummer.
On the polytricks of the microbead issue - the ban being imposed here is rumored to be for the sale of products using microbeads, not the production which is the evil businessman option. It would allow the companies on our territory to continue using their stockpile of microbeads up, all the while selling them to populations who don't know/care about it until the grand 'phase out'. PR yaaay. Allowing the companies concerned to phase out their use voluntarily allows them to just ignore the issue - even when making pledges they use RAW to ignore the RAIhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/20/microbeads-report-reveals-loopholes-pledges-by-biggest-firms
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/04 03:29:28
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
Britain needs to be prepared for some "difficult times" ahead as it leaves the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May has said.
Speaking to the Andrew Marr Show - in her first major interview since taking office - Mrs May warned Brexit would not be "plain sailing" for the UK.
She said formal EU talks will not begin until 2017, but vowed the process would not be "kicked into the long grass".
Mrs May also ruled out a snap election, saying the UK needs "stability".
The former home secretary became prime minister after David Cameron resigned in the wake of the EU referendum - with the Brexit process likely to dominate the first years of her premiership.
'Forging our own way'
Speaking before travelling to China for the G20 summit, Mrs May said she would not pretend that leaving the union would be "plain sailing", despite positive economic figures in the UK since the referendum.
"We have had some good figures and better figures than some had predicted would be the case. I'm not going to pretend that it's all going to be plain sailing.
"I think we must be prepared for the fact that there may be some difficult times ahead. But what I am is optimistic."
She insisted the country would "make a success" of leaving the EU, saying she was also "optimistic" about new opportunities for Britain outside the EU.
The prime minister said she wanted "an independent Britain, forging our own way in the world".
'Consult closely'
Ahead of the summit, she met for talks with US President Barack Obama.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, President Obama said the US would "consult closely" with the UK over Brexit negotiations to ensure there were no "adverse effects" in the US-UK trading relationship.
He said: "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that the consequences of the decision don't end up unravelling what is already a very strong and robust economic relationship that can become even stronger in the future."
But President Obama said before that it would be important to work out "what Brexit means for Europe".
He denied suggestions that earlier this year he had threatened to "punish" the UK if it voted to leave the EU when he said the UK it would go to the "back of the queue" for trade deals with the US.
He said those comments, made in April, had been in response to suggestions that the effects of Brexit would be "minimal".
In her interview with the BBC, Mrs May said the referendum result had shown voters did not want "free movement to continue in the way that it has done in the past".
She said ministers were looking at "options" for new EU migration controls.
"People also want to see the job opportunities, to see the economic opportunities, and so getting a good deal in trading goods and services is also obviously important for us," she added.
The prime minister said she was "very clear" that she expected the status of British citizens in other EU countries to be guaranteed and would "guarantee the status of EU citizens living here".
Mrs May said the government would not trigger Article 50 - which will begin the formal two-year process of leaving the EU - before the end of this year.
However, she added: "I'm very clear also that the British people don't want the issue of Article 50 being triggered just being kicked into the long grass because they want to know we're getting on with the job of putting Brexit into place and making a success of it."
She said Brexit minister David Davis will make a statement to the Commons this week on work the government has done over the summer.
Taking advice
Asked about Scottish independence, the prime minister questioned whether voters in Scotland supported the prospect of a second referendum on independence.
"I think if you look at some of the results that are now coming out of polling in Scotland, they suggest that the Scottish people don't want there to be a second referendum," she said.
Mrs May said the Scottish government would be "fully involved" and "fully engaged" in the Brexit discussions.
She also promised a decision on the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant deal this month, saying she was still taking advice on the issue.
"I don't just come in and say, right, this the position I take. I look at the evidence, I take the advice, I listen to that. That's what I'm still doing."
Mrs May would not be drawn on the issue of grammar schools, saying the government would wait to hear recommendations from Education Secretary Justine Greening.
She told the programme she wanted to give pupils "opportunities in life".
...so 2017 and we'll get our teeth kicked in economically .
Still blue passports etc etc etc 1111
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,
