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.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a bit of a misconception that all Scottish independence supporters want out of the UK, only to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.
Not me! I want out of both Unions, having voted to do so in 2014 and 2016.
I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)
welshhoppo wrote: Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.
I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)
I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.
England did kind of join up with EU lot less than 300 years ago.
If UK can decide to leave EU then why not Scotland from UK...300 years ago is so ancient history that just because they decided then shouldn't mean they can't ever separate. That would be England holding Scotland in ransom. "We dont' care about your interests but you aren't allowed to leave either".
And hypochrisy to want to be ruled by somebody you believe has your interests in better interest than other? So because A is bad B must also be bad?
We gave you the choice in 2014.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 08:58:03
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Australia today punched a big hole in Brexiter dreams that the UK would quickly get trade deals with other countries after the EU Referendum vote.
Talking to the UK would only happen after we left the EU and after they concluded a deal with the EU, the Aussies said. Oops.
This was a far cry from the briefings by senior Tories just recently.
This is what our minister for Brexit, David Davis MP, wrote in July:
I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.
So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.
Surprise surprise, David Davis had no idea what he was talking about.
We cannot even start negotiating with Australia we have formally left the EU, two years after triggering Article 50.
That’s what the Australian trade secretary told the BBC this morning.
Similarly, Theresa May also talked up a quick, potential deal with Australia, just days ago.
Australia and the UK are holding "preliminary discussions" about a post-Brexit trade deal.
Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said the "strong historical bonds" between the two countries meant talks could be completed "quite quickly".
But with the UK unable to sign deals while still in the European Union, he said an agreement was at least two-and-a-half years away.
A separate deal between Australia and the EU is at a more advanced stage.
The government does not plan to begin the formal two-year Brexit process by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty until the start of next year at the earliest.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme after meeting UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, Mr Ciobo said the UK-Australia deal could only happen "when the time is right", adding that there had been "good alignment" between the two sides.
"The timing around that will in many respects be dictated by the UK," he said.
"The discussions with the EU, the nature of those, the length of them is all yet to be determined."
Based on the UK triggering the two-year long Article 50 process of leaving the EU in the first half of 2017, he said such a deal would be "at least two and a half years off".
Formal negotiations would have to wait until Brexit had been completed, but Mr Ciobo said "preliminary discussions around what a post-Brexit Australia-UK trade deal might look like" were taking place already.
Australia would be "well and truly engrossed in negotiations" over its on-going deal with the EU in the meantime, with formal talks due to begin next year, he said.
The UK has no trained trade negotiators of its own, because it cannot sign deals while an EU member - and Mr Ciobo said he had offered to loan Australian experts to the UK for the talks.
After their meeting in London, Mr Fox and Mr Ciobo agreed that officials would meet twice a year to discuss the parameters of what both sides said they hoped would be an "ambitious and comprehensive" deal.
In a joint statement, they announced the creation of a working group to discuss areas of mutual co-operation including future investment opportunities.
The working group's first meeting will be in Australia in January.
As well as considering bilateral links, it will look at relevant international trade standards including World Trade Organization rules.
"We want the working group to advance an agenda that will ensure the expeditious transition to free trade agreement negotiations when the UK has formally completed its negotiations to exit the EU," the two men said.
Speaking after meeting UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the G20 summit in China, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he wanted to strike an early deal with the UK once it had left the EU.
.. wow, who'd have thought that.
Other than about 48% of the electorate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 09:10:44
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,
welshhoppo wrote: That's because Scotland is a part of the U.K. You had the chance to leave, you decided not to. And your not anti union you are anti tory? Even though that is a single party that is currently in power?
We narrowly declined our chance to leave, largely based on lies, fearmongering and broken promises from the Better Together campaign, such as the idea that staying in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU. To be told to stay in the Union to stay in the EU, only to be pulled out of the EU anyway, is a material enough change to justify another referendum. We want to stay in the EU, which means that if we have to go it alone to do so, then so be it.
Also, think realistically like heck would Scotland actually be on an equal footing with all the European Nations. Germany and France are still the most powerful nations in Europe and have a lot of MEPs, Scotland wouldn't have that many. Spain would probably hate your guts because Scotland has helped fuel the issue of independence for Catalonia.
We'd have a lot less sway than the UK, sure (but since the UK doesn't want a say in Europe, that's no big deal), but we'd still be treated as an independent country with it's own ability to implement directives, and have our seat at the table with our veto. Neither of those we have in the UK; we have power over the devolved stuff, but otherwise do what we're told.
They literally just told Ireland that their deal with Apple was illegal.
Because it was.
They told Greece that they had to change their economic policies or they were not going to be bailed out.
Which is reasonable, any bank would do the same.
Neither of those are good examples of the EU overstepping boundaries and trying to become a superstate.
So where did the EU gain the right to tell an independent sovereign nation that it couldn't make a deal with a company? It doesn't matter that it was a shady deal, I'm not arguing that it wasn't, but the EU decided that it was illegal. Apple wasn't even paying tax to the European Union, it wasn't even involved. The deal had been on since before the EU even existed as it does today.
Also independent nations can't put forward directives. That needs at least 1/4 of the commissions support to do so. You'd have to agree on a single matter with 6 other countries to even get a deal considered. It is a terrible system because it wasn't designed for politics. And you won't even get that many members in the EU parliament, because Scotlands population is tiny and it is done by PR.
And you have plenty of sway in the UK, the SNP is the third largest party. And the amount of devolution you already have more or less makes you an independent state. But the SNP really needs to start doing its day job and focus on Scotland rather than Scotlands future Union.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
welshhoppo wrote: That's because Scotland is a part of the U.K. You had the chance to leave, you decided not to. And your not anti union you are anti tory? Even though that is a single party that is currently in power?
We narrowly declined our chance to leave, largely based on lies, fearmongering and broken promises from the Better Together campaign, such as the idea that staying in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU. To be told to stay in the Union to stay in the EU, only to be pulled out of the EU anyway, is a material enough change to justify another referendum. We want to stay in the EU, which means that if we have to go it alone to do so, then so be it.
Also, think realistically like heck would Scotland actually be on an equal footing with all the European Nations. Germany and France are still the most powerful nations in Europe and have a lot of MEPs, Scotland wouldn't have that many. Spain would probably hate your guts because Scotland has helped fuel the issue of independence for Catalonia.
We'd have a lot less sway than the UK, sure (but since the UK doesn't want a say in Europe, that's no big deal), but we'd still be treated as an independent country with it's own ability to implement directives, and have our seat at the table with our veto. Neither of those we have in the UK; we have power over the devolved stuff, but otherwise do what we're told.
They literally just told Ireland that their deal with Apple was illegal.
Because it was.
They told Greece that they had to change their economic policies or they were not going to be bailed out.
Which is reasonable, any bank would do the same.
Neither of those are good examples of the EU overstepping boundaries and trying to become a superstate.
So where did the EU gain the right to tell an independent sovereign nation that it couldn't make a deal with a company?
When that sovereign nation decided to agree to a deal with the EU that let the EU tell them that. "Pacta sunt servanda" is the most basic and fundamental principle of international law.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
My apologies to Welshhoppo I missed the other bit he wrote...
But it's not my fault, it's the evil internet - it's reduced my attention span against my own will
"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
And you then changed country they voted to be part on. World changes. You were given choise whether to join EU or not. You joined. Why you then decide it doesn't apply anymore?
Either you should stick with your decision or you should allow Scotland to reconsider when their deal changes.
So where did the EU gain the right to tell an independent sovereign nation that it couldn't make a deal with a company? It doesn't matter that it was a shady deal, I'm not arguing that it wasn't, but the EU decided that it was illegal. Apple wasn't even paying tax to the European Union, it wasn't even involved. The deal had been on since before the EU even existed as it does today.
Any organization can point out that a deal is illegal. That it's illegal is clear (I don't have a law to cite, though).
The deal started well after the EU was joined, and the tax arrangement only really changed in 2014.
Why shouldn't the EU point out an illegal deal is illegal? As far as I can tell, the EU isn't actually forcing Ireland to do anything about it.
Also independent nations can't put forward directives. That needs at least 1/4 of the commissions support to do so. You'd have to agree on a single matter with 6 other countries to even get a deal considered. It is a terrible system because it wasn't designed for politics. And you won't even get that many members in the EU parliament, because Scotlands population is tiny and it is done by PR.
I was talking about freedom to *implement* directives as we want. Plus, getting an agreement with 1/4 of the comissions to get something proposed is a lot better than we have now; it's pretty much a given that anything we propose in Westminster will be completely ignored.
And you have plenty of sway in the UK, the SNP is the third largest party. And the amount of devolution you already have more or less makes you an independent state. But the SNP really needs to start doing its day job and focus on Scotland rather than Scotlands future Union.
Scotlands future and the Union are pretty closely linked. Plus whilst the SNP is the 3rd largest party (and the only credible opposition at the moment), it still holds precisely 0 sway in the UK, beyond it's own devolved powers.
And you then changed country they voted to be part on. World changes. You were given choise whether to join EU or not. You joined. Why you then decide it doesn't apply anymore?
Either you should stick with your decision or you should allow Scotland to reconsider when their deal changes.
Exactly. The UK in 2016 is not the same UK we narrowly agreed to remain with in 2014.
Just like the EU you want to leave is not the same EU we agreed to join in the 70's.
Just like the 40k I stopped playing in 2015 is not the same as the one I started playing in 1996.
Things change, and we're perfectly entitled to change our reactions based on that change. If you can decide to leave the EU after deciding to join, we can decide to leave the UK after deciding to remain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 09:27:19
If anymore proof were needed about the overreaching arm of the European Union, have a look at this report about the EU trying to dictate gun control in Switzerland.
God almighty, who do the EU think they are, messing in the internal affairs of a non-Member?
Friction between Switzerland and the European Union over the bloc's plans to tighten gun control following a rise in militant attacks could turn into another serious snag in ties already tested by Swiss efforts to curb immigration.
The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system, has raised hackles among the Swiss, who resent intervention from Brussels.
Christoph Blocher, a leading voice of the Swiss right and a eurosceptic, says Switzerland should consider abandoning Europe's Schengen system of passport-free travel if the Swiss people rejected the proposed measures in a referendum.
Drafted after militants killed scores in attacks in Paris last year, the EU plans on gun control aimed to curb online weapons sales and impose more restrictions on assault weapons.
But the initial proposal provoked an outcry in Switzerland because it meant a ban on the long Swiss tradition of ex-soldiers keeping their assault rifles.
Then, two months ago, Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga returned from meetings in Brussels saying she had successfully negotiated against such a ban. But the fine print was more complicated: EU members demanded concessions including psychological tests and club membership.
Swiss gun rights proponents are now complaining this could disarm thousands of law-abiding citizens and that it would encroach on Switzerland's heritage and national identity that includes a well-armed citizenry.
"When conflicts arise, Switzerland must put its sovereignty first," said Blocher, a businessman and vice president of the SVP, which is the country's biggest party. "In an emergency, Switzerland should be ready to exit Schengen."
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in Europe, with nearly 48 percent of households owning a gun. In France, there are about 30 weapons per 100 people, while the figure in the Great Britain is far lower, at 6.7 guns per 100 civilians, according to the Australian-based think tank GunPolicy.org.
However, Swiss gun-related crime is low and the high number of privately owned guns harks back to a long tradition of self-defence and to the Swiss policy of near-universal conscription.
In 2015, 11 percent of the 20,600 soldiers who left the Swiss Army opted to keep their assault rifles which upon departure are modified to fire single shots. The number of soldiers choosing to keep their weapons has been declining for several years.
Switzerland's grassroots gun lobby ProTELL, named after the 14th-century folk hero William Tell, said it will take the matter to voters if the European gun restrictions result in stricter ownership standards on Swiss soil.
Under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, groups like ProTELL can gather signatures and put such matters before voters.
"With our direct democracy, Swiss people are accustomed to having the last word," said ProTell's Dominik Riner. "We're opposed to any and all efforts to make current weapons laws more restrictive."
The gun control issue comes as Switzerland's EU ties are strained on multiple fronts.
The two sides are negotiating immigration curbs after Swiss voters in 2014 backed quotas on European workers. A failure to agree could mean the collapse of bilateral accords with Swiss' main trading partner.
Outlines of any deal may emerge when European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker visits on Sept. 19, but the clock is ticking: Switzerland has said it may enact unilateral curbs by February 2017.
Europe plans to finalize its gun directive later this year.
"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
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I hope Switzerland tells them to get stuffed.
Personally with the way the continant is these days Switzerland is probably the safest place to be. Any jihadi looking for trouble there will get it and then some.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 09:52:36
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If anymore proof were needed about the overreaching arm of the European Union, have a look at this report about the EU trying to dictate gun control in Switzerland.
God almighty, who do the EU think they are, messing in the internal affairs of a non-Member?
from like the 2nd line:
The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system
So it's not as if they are trying to impose rules on non-members, they are proposing tighter gun control on the Schengen area.
Plus, the directive is aimed at restricting sales, so I'm sure some exemption could be made for Swiss ex-soldiers keeping weapons. It's something about a recall militia rather than just tradition, isn't it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 09:52:02
Australia today punched a big hole in Brexiter dreams that the UK would quickly get trade deals with other countries after the EU Referendum vote.
Talking to the UK would only happen after we left the EU and after they concluded a deal with the EU, the Aussies said. Oops.
This was a far cry from the briefings by senior Tories just recently.
This is what our minister for Brexit, David Davis MP, wrote in July:
I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.
So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.
Surprise surprise, David Davis had no idea what he was talking about.
We cannot even start negotiating with Australia we have formally left the EU, two years after triggering Article 50.
That’s what the Australian trade secretary told the BBC this morning.
Similarly, Theresa May also talked up a quick, potential deal with Australia, just days ago.
Australia and the UK are holding "preliminary discussions" about a post-Brexit trade deal.
Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said the "strong historical bonds" between the two countries meant talks could be completed "quite quickly".
But with the UK unable to sign deals while still in the European Union, he said an agreement was at least two-and-a-half years away.
A separate deal between Australia and the EU is at a more advanced stage.
The government does not plan to begin the formal two-year Brexit process by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty until the start of next year at the earliest.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme after meeting UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, Mr Ciobo said the UK-Australia deal could only happen "when the time is right", adding that there had been "good alignment" between the two sides.
"The timing around that will in many respects be dictated by the UK," he said.
"The discussions with the EU, the nature of those, the length of them is all yet to be determined."
Based on the UK triggering the two-year long Article 50 process of leaving the EU in the first half of 2017, he said such a deal would be "at least two and a half years off".
Formal negotiations would have to wait until Brexit had been completed, but Mr Ciobo said "preliminary discussions around what a post-Brexit Australia-UK trade deal might look like" were taking place already.
Australia would be "well and truly engrossed in negotiations" over its on-going deal with the EU in the meantime, with formal talks due to begin next year, he said.
The UK has no trained trade negotiators of its own, because it cannot sign deals while an EU member - and Mr Ciobo said he had offered to loan Australian experts to the UK for the talks.
After their meeting in London, Mr Fox and Mr Ciobo agreed that officials would meet twice a year to discuss the parameters of what both sides said they hoped would be an "ambitious and comprehensive" deal.
In a joint statement, they announced the creation of a working group to discuss areas of mutual co-operation including future investment opportunities.
The working group's first meeting will be in Australia in January.
As well as considering bilateral links, it will look at relevant international trade standards including World Trade Organization rules.
"We want the working group to advance an agenda that will ensure the expeditious transition to free trade agreement negotiations when the UK has formally completed its negotiations to exit the EU," the two men said.
Speaking after meeting UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the G20 summit in China, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he wanted to strike an early deal with the UK once it had left the EU.
.. wow, who'd have thought that.
Other than about 48% of the electorate.
I actually listens to the Australian interview this morning and got a significantly different opinion to that reached by the BBC
For example he was asked if Australia was likely to agree a trade deal with the UK before we left the EU - to which he said they could sort out most of the work but couldn't sign a deal before the UK has left the EU (which is obvious as we are part of the EU until that point and they make our deals for us)
He was then asked if they will put EU to the front of the queue, to which he said that any UK deal was at least 2.5 years away (based on triggering Article 50 in Q2 next year and then 2 years of negotiation) and that the EU deal was already in progress, he therefore felt that it was likely that Australia would reach a deal with the EU before it could sign a deal with the UK.
He also admitted that it was likely that the UK would prioritise a deal with the EU over one with Australia for the two years after article 50, so it was likely that only the framework of a deal would be agreed in that time, but said it was likely that it would be enough that in 2-6 months after we have formally left that a deal would be ready to be signed as most of the leg work would have already been done.
It really isn't the doom and gloom that the BBC has put on it in that article, which is a shame as I think the BBC generally does a good job of being impartial.
This was all on the Today program some time between 7am and 8am this morning, I'm sure it would be on BBC iPlayer if anyone wants to listen to the full thing and draw their own conclusions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 12:16:32
Britain has negotiated its own trade deals in over 40 years
Britain will look to hire foreign trade negotiators to help it meet the challenge of striking new trade deals with countries in Europe and beyond after last month’s shock decision to leave the European Union, foreign minister Philip Hammond said.
“I don’t think we can only recruit people who are British,” Hammond told BBC television on Monday. “If we can find Australians, Americans who have got high-level skills in trade negotiation, let’s recruit them as well.”
Already, New Zealand has held informal talks with U.K. diplomats about loaning out some of its trade negotiators, in a move that reflects the historical ties between the two–and New Zealand’s more recent experience of negotiating with China, in particular.
so we're going to be hiring Australians to negotiate with Australia for us.
AUSTRALIAN and UK officials will begin scoping out what a free-trade agreement between the two countries will look like, following key post-Brexit talks in London.
The high-level group will meet twice a year beginning in 2017 to discuss how an “ambitious and comprehensive” deal could work, according to a joint statement from the Australian and UK trade ministers, Steven Ciobo and Liam Fox.
But Mr Ciobo said a UK deal won’t take precedence over others already in the pipeline with Indonesia and the EU.
“I did indicate Indonesia was our top priority that is true and that’s because of where we are in that process,” he told an audience at Asia House in London. “But there’s a myriad of interests … that I’m not going to put into a league table.”
Earlier, the Queensland MP said Australia had significant experience with heavyweight free trade agreements having signed them with Japan and Korea.
“But the fact is, an Australia-UK negotiation of a FTA may be a few years off. Your processes to disengage with the EU will take years — years of potential liberalisation we can’t afford to let slip. Certainly, none of our competitors will,” he said.
“So we’re working on an Australia-EU FTA, which will prepare the way for our own agreement in years to come.”
“The best deal is a deal that is done most quickly so discussions with the EU are more advanced than they are with the UK.”
The formation of the working group comes after Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Theresa May said they are committed to striking a free-trade deal between the two countries at the G20 summit in China on Monday.
A statement from the UK and Australian trade ministries said it will “ensure the expeditious transition to FTA negotiations when the UK has formally completed its negotiations to exit the EU.”
However that’s complicated by the fact Britain is not permitted to negotiate separate arrangements with other states while it remains a member of the EU. The country is also grappling with what the terms of the Brexit will look like with key questions around freedom of movement and services remaining unanswered.
While Japan has published a list of demands for what it would like to see from Brexit, Mr Ciobo would not be drawn on what Australia thinks the new UK-EU relationship should look like.
“I’m not going to start lecturing the UK about what they should do in that respect,” he said.
“We did have conversations about some of the options available to the UK and what those might entail and what they might canvas. Ultimately that’s the domain of the Brits obviously they’ll make those decisions and determine what suits them but we’re going to work alongside them as a partner.”
The June 23 decision that shocked the UK political establishment has already complicated things for Australian businesses operating in the UK.
Tower Transit CEO Neil Smith, whose Australian family-owned company is contracted to deliver five per cent of routes on London’s iconic red buses, said the vote has significantly changed their company focus towards international markets instead.
“We moved to the UK thinking we were entering a market of 500 million. Now we find we’re in a market of 60 million, that’s a bit disappointing.”
“But rather than a headquarters of European business we see it as a headquarters of an international business,” he said, adding that the company has used its London experience to springboard into Singapore.
Mr Ciobo said the Australia-owned business that employs 1700 staff is a “great success story” of how Australian innovation is making waves overseas.
“Red buses are iconic in London and who would have thought it was an Australian company?” he said.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister Marise Payne are also in Europe for high level talks with German and EU ministers this week.
so we're actually behind Indonesia in the queue for deals, and of course the EU get to make their deal(s) first.
Sure they'll be bound to be helpful for us here.
.. so we cannot do any deals with Australia for.. call it 2 years --
If we cannot arrange a free trade deal with the Eu then we're stuck with 12% tariffs
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 13:03:11
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,
welshhoppo wrote: That's because Scotland is a part of the U.K. You had the chance to leave, you decided not to. And your not anti union you are anti tory? Even though that is a single party that is currently in power?
We narrowly declined our chance to leave, largely based on lies, fearmongering and broken promises from the Better Together campaign, such as the idea that staying in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU. To be told to stay in the Union to stay in the EU, only to be pulled out of the EU anyway, is a material enough change to justify another referendum. We want to stay in the EU, which means that if we have to go it alone to do so, then so be it.
Also, think realistically like heck would Scotland actually be on an equal footing with all the European Nations. Germany and France are still the most powerful nations in Europe and have a lot of MEPs, Scotland wouldn't have that many. Spain would probably hate your guts because Scotland has helped fuel the issue of independence for Catalonia.
We'd have a lot less sway than the UK, sure (but since the UK doesn't want a say in Europe, that's no big deal), but we'd still be treated as an independent country with it's own ability to implement directives, and have our seat at the table with our veto. Neither of those we have in the UK; we have power over the devolved stuff, but otherwise do what we're told.
They literally just told Ireland that their deal with Apple was illegal.
Because it was.
They told Greece that they had to change their economic policies or they were not going to be bailed out.
Which is reasonable, any bank would do the same.
Neither of those are good examples of the EU overstepping boundaries and trying to become a superstate.
So where did the EU gain the right to tell an independent sovereign nation that it couldn't make a deal with a company? It doesn't matter that it was a shady deal, I'm not arguing that it wasn't, but the EU decided that it was illegal. Apple wasn't even paying tax to the European Union, it wasn't even involved. The deal had been on since before the EU even existed as it does today.
Also independent nations can't put forward directives. That needs at least 1/4 of the commissions support to do so. You'd have to agree on a single matter with 6 other countries to even get a deal considered. It is a terrible system because it wasn't designed for politics. And you won't even get that many members in the EU parliament, because Scotlands population is tiny and it is done by PR.
And you have plenty of sway in the UK, the SNP is the third largest party. And the amount of devolution you already have more or less makes you an independent state. But the SNP really needs to start doing its day job and focus on Scotland rather than Scotlands future Union.
When the Irish signed up to the Treaty Of Rome, which contains provisions concerning the EU oversight of state aid to industry.
Remember the WTO also has provisions concerning the WTO's oversight of state aid to industry.
This should not concern you but if you wanted to stay in the EU and change it for the better, perhaps the first thing to do would be to put forward a motion to change the rule about requiring six nations to agree on putting forwards a directive, and get the agreement of other friendly nations, such as the Scandis, Eire, Holland, Poland and Germany, to back it.
Do you know what the most annoying thing about these trade deals is (for me &others) its when the frak did the uk give up the national right to make our own trade deals (which a lot of pro eu'ers say we havent). And why wasnt the public informed about it?
And how many other things have the eu got there claws into that the general public dont know about?
We import Australian wine and beef, Argentinian wine and beef, Japanese wine and rice, Chilean wine and asparagus, Kenyan French beans and wine, American wine and computers, etc etc. Despite being in the same economic area as the three biggest wine producers in the world, France, Italy and Spain.
What we don't have is free trade agreements with these non-EU countries granting reciprocal access to the Common Market because such a deal by its very nature has to be negotiated at the EU level.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If anymore proof were needed about the overreaching arm of the European Union, have a look at this report about the EU trying to dictate gun control in Switzerland.
God almighty, who do the EU think they are, messing in the internal affairs of a non-Member?
from like the 2nd line:
The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system
So it's not as if they are trying to impose rules on non-members, they are proposing tighter gun control on the Schengen area.
Plus, the directive is aimed at restricting sales, so I'm sure some exemption could be made for Swiss ex-soldiers keeping weapons. It's something about a recall militia rather than just tradition, isn't it?
Germany took it upon herself to unilaterally throw Schengen out the window, along with the Dublin agreement, during the refugee crisis a few months back, and Merkel tried to lay down the law to Hungary over the number of refugees it should take.
In other words, some countries make it up as they go along, and there seems to be one law for some EU members, and another for other EU members.
It's a shambles from top to bottom, so quite how they can think they can lay down the law to the Swiss is beyond me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: We import Australian wine and beef, Argentinian wine and beef, Japanese wine and rice, Chilean wine and asparagus, Kenyan French beans and wine, American wine and computers, etc etc. Despite being in the same economic area as the three biggest wine producers in the world, France, Italy and Spain.
What we don't have is free trade agreements with these non-EU countries granting reciprocal access to the Common Market because such a deal by its very nature has to be negotiated at the EU level.
This is pretty obvious if you think about it.
With BREXIT, the hope is that we can cut out the middle man in any future trade deals.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/07 16:02:21
"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
Because the general public doesn't give a rat's ass about politics. Seriously, when a 72% voter turnout counts as great it's pretty obvious that there's a problem with the system.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a bit of a misconception that all Scottish independence supporters want out of the UK, only to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.
Not me! I want out of both Unions, having voted to do so in 2014 and 2016.
So keep your damn stereotypes to yourself!
Well at least you're consistent.
Now, obviously we're on opposite sides of the Scot Ind debate. I think of myself as British first and foremost, not English and certainly not European. We Brits have far more in common with each other than we do with continental Europeans, and therefore the only union I wish to be part of is the British Union. Whereas you want (genuine) Scottish independence. You are my countrymen as far as I'm concerned, and so are the Welsh. I don't feel the same way about continental Europeans and never will (not out of any degree of animosity, we're just too different to meld together into a union).
But hypothetically, are there any circumstances or conditions under which you would change your mind and favour staying in the UK? What would it take? Electoral reform, federalisation of the British government, further devolution, a shift in the centre ground of English politics towards the Left?
(Leaving aside the question of whether these conditions can ever actually be achieved, which is an entirely separate debate).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a bit of a misconception that all Scottish independence supporters want out of the UK, only to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.
Not me! I want out of both Unions, having voted to do so in 2014 and 2016.
So keep your damn stereotypes to yourself!
Well at least you're consistent.
Now, obviously we're on opposite sides of the Scot Ind debate. I think of myself as British first and foremost, not English and certainly not European. We Brits have far more in common with each other than we do with continental Europeans, and therefore the only union I wish to be part of is the British Union. Whereas you want (genuine) Scottish independence. You are my countrymen as far as I'm concerned, and so are the Welsh. I don't feel the same way about continental Europeans and never will (not out of any degree of animosity, we're just too different to meld together into a union).
But hypothetically, are there any circumstances or conditions under which you would change your mind and favour staying in the UK? What would it take? Electoral reform, federalisation of the British government, further devolution, a shift in the centre ground of English politics towards the Left?
(Leaving aside the question of whether these conditions can ever actually be achieved, which is an entirely separate debate).
Basically...name your price.
I'm off out soon, so this will be my last reply for the day,
but to answer your question, I would say this.
A few years ago, I would have been tempted by a federal solution, with Full Fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and Westminster only meeting for things like foreign policy and defence. A elected senate, replacing the lords, would have been my choice as well.
But it's clear to me that the glacial pace of change at Westminster, plus its refusal to budge an inch on things like federal Britain or even electoral reform, swung the decision for me. It's independence or nothing for me.
Hell, only the other day we had an example of Westminster's reluctance to devolve power. You can't vary VAT across different regions in a nation due to EU law, but now that we're coming out the EU, you would think the Scottish Parliament's request for full VAT revenue would get a fair hearing at Westminster.
Not a chance.
"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
And you then changed country they voted to be part on. World changes. You were given choise whether to join EU or not. You joined. Why you then decide it doesn't apply anymore?
Either you should stick with your decision or you should allow Scotland to reconsider when their deal changes.
1. NO. Were NEVER given he choice to join the EU. We never voted to join a political union, we voted to STAY IN a free trade zone. It was the politicians who decided to morph that free trade zone into a political union without our direct consent.
2. Because an entire generation never had the chance to vote on the EU. That vote was decades ago. As a 25 year old, I never had the chance to vote in the original referendum.
The current generation of Scots made their decision, and have to live with it.
The next generation of Scots should have the right to a second vote on Scottish independence in a decade or two, once they've grown to adulthood and the consequences and long term impact of Brexit have materialized so they can make an informed decision. But this idea that Scots should immediately have another referendum, just two years after their first vote? That makes a mockery of democracy. By that logic, then I demand the right to a second against my local Labour MP Phil Wilson, who I voted against.
Erh to quote "Not to mention the fact that moving country is infinitely more major a decision, than the comparative decision involving ticking a box on a bit of paper regarding a political issue, that a third of people didn't even bother to show up to vote on. " is definitely implying that people that didn't vote are the ones complaining about moving
....how? In all seriousness, I'm staring at the sentence, and genuinely not comprehending how you're getting that. I'll try and reword, since there seems to be a bit of a communications failure here.
'I would think that to the majority of people, moving country is an infinitely more major personal decision, than a decision involving ticking a box on a bit of paper over a political issue; when the aforementioned issue was deemed unimportant enough by as many as a third of the people in the country to not be worth walking to the polling booth on.'
Well I'd recommend using less comma's then. Comma's link sentences together. Separate points requires the use of the semi-colons as you did in the latter sentence. That would cause less confusion for all.
But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? I thought this started on the concept of whether people made decisions on an emotional or economical basis. I am unsure why that has got anything to do with those people that didn't vote. If people get frustrated enough to leave then I doubt they are considering that some people didn't vote?
Please. The temporary nature of keyboard activism is a well-documented concept. The number of people who just hit 'share' on stuff and use that as their way of protesting isn't uncommon, there's fifty of them for every one who gets off their arse and does something more. Which often makes it considerably less relevant, because nobody, be it your MP, your local councillor, your local business community, your bank, or more, gives a damn about what you're hitting 'share' on (unless they can use it for advertising purposes).
The pro's and cons of what they did isn't important. The point is that the way young people act and co-ordinate is different and in some ways can be more effective because they reach more people quicker. As shown a lot of real changes occur because younger people are more active and can tap into a faster resource than a load of old f*rts discussing about something around the pub table. Even if it is only one in 50 people that take a fresh air approach to doing something those 'keyboard heroes' may reach potentially thousands of people (because 1/50 actually then do something off the back of it) and that's a lot of people getting out to do something. Of course when these things do crop up then evidence generally points to Governments taking the heavy handed approach to ensure that they don't start too much of a ball rolling whether that's China shooting them or UK Government police charging them with the light brigade; herding them into pens; and hitting(manslaughtering?) anyone that happens to be nearby. Hell it's not been that long since the UK took weapons up against its own populace because they were protesting.
If electronic communication isn't so important then why do UKIP supporters jump on any twitter conversations that might be promoting a positive EU story?
They voted on a bunch of assumptions that are now false
Which were? Last I recalled, everyone knew the British referendum was coming, I sure know I did. The assumption had to be that Brexit was a possibility. If it wasn't, then they really have nobody else to blame for not paying attention.;
You mean other than EU costs us £350m a week that the we could spend on the NHS - nope
That EU immigration is bad for the country - nope
That there will be free trade and limited movement - nope
That the UK will have less red tape - nope
That the EU is some monstrous federal machine - nope
That the UK will be able to have it's cake and eat it - nope
That everyone will be circa £4000 worse off by 2030 - nope
That WW3 will start if Leave - nope
That EU is becoming like Hitler's Germany - nope
That there will be a points based system for immigration - nope
Those EU migrants are taking our jobs - nope
Those EU migrants are exploiting our NHS and taking it to breaking point - nope
Need I go on?
There's no such thing as true democracy in reality. Every system has flaws and abuses.
But as has been said before "It's not perfect but its the best we have". The point is that a referendum is not Democracy. Democracy by definition is having representatives of the people make decisions on behalf of the country. No where in the definition of democracy does it say decisions are made by the populace as a whole (and there is a sound reason for that, we simply don't have all the facts/time/money/brainpower to understand it all (though I question the latter for many MPs; after all if you can't remember to zip your flies before you make a speech then god knows if they really understand the EU or any legislation)
Nope. Wrong tack. I'm asking why their interests are more important than mine that they now get priority in taking up the time and money of our joint government at this moment in time over an issue they very recently got to take up the time and money of our joint government over. One of our interests will be prioritised, the government is scrabbling around for the staff to deal with one disentanglement. I'm saying, they had a vote recently. Why should their interests be prioritised over mine here?
Because those interests are for the people of that Country; that it has an impact on an individual in another country basically means that the value of a person or persons that doesn't contribute to that country directly should be more influential than all of the people in the Country in question. Would it be reasonable that a decision the US government makes on behalf of it's people should be stopped or not happen because it might have an impact on us? If we are so worried about the financial impact then maybe we should let Scotland and the SNP run the referendum from their budget without any interference from Westminster (it's up to SNP and Scottish Tories and Labour to duke it out). Then there is no financial impact to us Englanders!
Note, I'm not asserting that my interests should be prioritised. I'm questioning why theirs should be. What is it about Scottish independence that makes it such a compelling issue at this precise moment that it should be prioritised above the interests of the vast majority of the country at this exact moment?
Because they are their own separate Country and should be allowed to determine their future and not hamstrung by another Government that continually uses the excuse that it's not the right time for everyone else that doesn't live there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If anymore proof were needed about the overreaching arm of the European Union, have a look at this report about the EU trying to dictate gun control in Switzerland.
God almighty, who do the EU think they are, messing in the internal affairs of a non-Member?
I see so the evil EU wants to limit the sale of assault weapons across the whole of the EU to try and at least prevent further atrocities. I mean it's as if the general populace need to have daily access to an assault rifle just in case...erh... the rats rise up against us?
I presume then you are supportive of the UK citizen having access to assault rifles too. I can imagine that within...oooh...lets be positive a few hours we would be at civil war with each other!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: That's exactly what I'm talking about. I hope Switzerland tells them to get stuffed.
Personally with the way the continant is these days Switzerland is probably the safest place to be. Any jihadi looking for trouble there will get it and then some.
You mean just like the USA is? Access to weapons does not guarantee or even add to peoples safety. For the most part it just increases the risk of being shot either deliberately or accidently.
Germany took it upon herself to unilaterally throw Schengen out the window, along with the Dublin agreement, during the refugee crisis a few months back, and Merkel tried to lay down the law to Hungary over the number of refugees it should take.
In other words, some countries make it up as they go along, and there seems to be one law for some EU members, and another for other EU members.
It's a shambles from top to bottom, so quite how they can think they can lay down the law to the Swiss is beyond me.
That's not really correct now is it. All the countries agreed and signed up to a method for dealing with migrants. However with the disaster in Syria (which we should note was partially caused by the UK activities) some Countries thought that they would be better off ignoring except maybe Italy and Greece (ironic really considering everyone says they were screwed over by the EU). That led to mass movement of migrants, rather than try to be settled sensibly throughout the EU and Germany took the rather sensible view that it might alleviate some of the pressures on the system by allowing them free passage before they registered. That Hungary is required to take some immigrants is because they agreed with the Schengen agreement and what it stood for and it was rather only Germany pointing out what they agreed to do.
With BREXIT, the hope is that we can cut out the middle man in any future trade deals.
You mean other than another country's negotiator (who probably can't give two-toots what happens as long as they get paid; and if it's by the hour then expect it to take a long time). Alternatively maybe Liam Fox can get his mate and Business Partner to help out again, I mean that can't go wrong can it (well maybe not for them anyway).
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/09/07 19:38:48
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If anymore proof were needed about the overreaching arm of the European Union, have a look at this report about the EU trying to dictate gun control in Switzerland.
God almighty, who do the EU think they are, messing in the internal affairs of a non-Member?
from like the 2nd line:
The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system
So it's not as if they are trying to impose rules on non-members, they are proposing tighter gun control on the Schengen area.
Plus, the directive is aimed at restricting sales, so I'm sure some exemption could be made for Swiss ex-soldiers keeping weapons. It's something about a recall militia rather than just tradition, isn't it?
Germany took it upon herself to unilaterally throw Schengen out the window, along with the Dublin agreement, during the refugee crisis a few months back, and Merkel tried to lay down the law to Hungary over the number of refugees it should take.
In other words, some countries make it up as they go along, and there seems to be one law for some EU members, and another for other EU members.
It's a shambles from top to bottom, so quite how they can think they can lay down the law to the Swiss is beyond me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: We import Australian wine and beef, Argentinian wine and beef, Japanese wine and rice, Chilean wine and asparagus, Kenyan French beans and wine, American wine and computers, etc etc. Despite being in the same economic area as the three biggest wine producers in the world, France, Italy and Spain.
What we don't have is free trade agreements with these non-EU countries granting reciprocal access to the Common Market because such a deal by its very nature has to be negotiated at the EU level.
This is pretty obvious if you think about it.
With BREXIT, the hope is that we can cut out the middle man in any future trade deals.
Merkel isn't "the EU".
Hungary didn't cave in to German pressure. If the UK had shown some fething leadership and engaged in the process they would have caved in even less.
Merkel has been spanked hard by the German electorate in recent regional elections.
Without BREXIT, the certainty is that we can cut out the middle man in existing trade deals and the ones that are not yet finalised but coming down the line, e.g Canada and Japan, but we won't be part of them and WE WILL be at the back of the queue after the EU because it is a much larger and better integrated market than the UK.
Frankly, the appeal of BREXIT is, "Things aren't going to be as bad as you think," and "Sovereignty". It is not cutting the mustard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/07 19:46:09
Unfortunately JC just didn't punish May for the way she responded. What's that May you misled about housing to the Commons in your second questions time....ooops. Seems like she is making it up as she goes along and listening to no one...oh wait Wrexit.
Also it appears May's true colours are coming out as today in PMQs she stated
"that whoever wins the Labour Party leadership will not be allowed near power again."
which would be a Dictatorship by my understanding so Empress May is it now?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/07 20:16:14
"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 know it's partially their own fault as well, but how can you europhiles in here still support the EU after the amount of misery it's inflicted upon the Mediterranean countries? If the Tories treated the UK half as bad as they've treated Greece you'd all be going ape gak, and yet here we are. Mass austerity, youth unemployment, no growth, record levels of debt...all that's acceptable?
It's all an act of sanctimonious virtue signalling snobbery I'm sure. It dosn't matter how badly the EU performs; supporting it automatically puts you on a higher plane of existence than the rest of the knuckle dragging Neanderthals out there right? You'll always get to say to yourself I'm better than you, and that's what this is really about.
Future War Cultist wrote: ...It's all an act of sanctimonious virtue signalling snobbery I'm sure. It dosn't matter how badly the EU performs; supporting it automatically puts you on a higher plane of existence than the rest of the knuckle dragging Neanderthals out there right? You'll always get to say to yourself I'm better than you, and that's what this is really about.
Is that what this all about for you? Some sort of inferiority complex? Would you like to point out specifically in this thread where anyone has said that you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal, and that they are better than you for voting to Remain? Or is that just hyperbole to massage your own ego?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Future War Cultist wrote: I know it's partially their own fault as well, but how can you europhiles in here still support the EU after the amount of misery it's inflicted upon the Mediterranean countries? If the Tories treated the UK half as bad as they've treated Greece you'd all be going ape gak, and yet here we are. Mass austerity, youth unemployment, no growth, record levels of debt...all that's acceptable?
You mean other than the Tories:-
Reducing disability benefits to the most vulnerable.
The bedroom tax even for those people where one person is critically ill and needs to live in a separate bedroom
Reducing funding to local government services so what they provide is a shadow of it's former self (a lot of which support the more vulnerable parts of society)
Reducing benefits for those that need it the most
Reduction in funding to charities
Reduction in funding to deal with homelessness
Reduction in funding to education
Reduction in funding to the NHS
'Privatising' schools and allowing the 'companies' to store vast sums of money for their own personal gain
Continuing to allow Execs to squander peoples hard own pension pots on whatever they feel like
Continuing to allow companies to enforce unethical working conditions on staff
Giving Tax breaks to big business
A housing system that makes anyone on less than about 40K almost impossible to get one of their own and then stuck paying through the nose for rental accommodation meaning they will never get on the ladder.
Yes I am sure the Tory government is really good for the Country (or maybe just those they want to pander too).
On the other hand the EU bailed out countries that have massively over spent their credit card whilst politely asking whether it would not be too inconvenient to actually collect taxes that are owed (and not let silly loops holes avoid it altogether, like never finishing the outhouse) or make themselves a bit more efficient.
Mass austerity, youth unemployment, record levels of debt...all that's acceptable
And of course this is all true for the UK too.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/07 21:01:40
"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
Future War Cultist wrote: ....If the Tories treated the UK half as bad as they've treated Greece you'd all be going ape gak, and yet here we are. Mass austerity, youth unemployment, no growth, record levels of debt...all that's acceptable? ....
As it happens, no its not acceptable, and we were having a debate about the Tories taking advantage of BREXIT to further their agenda earlier. In fact, you were involved in that part of the conversation HERE.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Here's the difference though; the Tories won an election. Twice. It's FPTP so it's very flawed but they won. If the other parties had a clue and there wasn't a sizeable chunk of the country who voted for them then they wouldn't have won. It sucks but that's democracy.
Nobody in Greece voted for this. It's been forced upon them by the troika. This is the difference.
