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.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
So it looks like you begin to exit stage left in March then?


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/may-says-uk-to-start-eu-exit-process-by-end-march/ar-BBwTIYg?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

There will also be a second Scottish Independence referendum. Logic dictates it.

Scotland voted to stay with the UK in 2014. It voted by 2/3rds to stay in the EU in 2016.

Scotland will have to choose which union it wants to stay in. There is no other way around this...

Interesting times ahead...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

Your point about "Bulami" is moot because we can always set up our own bill of rights enforced by our own Supreme Court outside of government control, which can state that UK citizens will not be extradited to any country were they will be mistreated.

But will it?

As for the EU regulations being written into British law; his now means that we're only going to be keeping the laws that we're satisfied with, and the ones we aren't satisfied with will be ditched. Sensible laws on fire safety etc can stay but those bs regulations on fishing and light bulbs and vacuum cleaners will be scrapped. Meanwhile future laws are going to passed by our own elected representatives who will have to answer to us, instead of by remote unaccountable EU officials. It's elementary.

Do you trust our government to keep the laws we need and scrap the ones we don't?
As pointed out, the regulations you regard as bs are there for good reason, but the Tories would quite happy scrap them. Same with all sorts of other environmental protections we need but hurt profits. Bear in mind that the reason we have most of these regulations in the first place is because of the EU, not because of the UK government.

 Ketara wrote:


The Home Secretary has had relevant powers over matters such as extradition for the longest time. There's been a push and pull dynamic over the powers of the State, the powers of Cabinet/individual ministerial posts, the powers of the Prime Minister, the judicial system and more ongoing since we've had them. From Blair's abolition of the Law Lords and the post of Lord Chancellor back to the overruling of the legal system in WW2. You're a bit late to that party. Lives and judicial matters have always been decided by political judgements, both prior to and during our membership of Europe. Not to mention that Europe is as susceptible to political judgements as the UK system, it's just a different kind of politics.

Yes even human rights is political to some extent, but these are agreed from multinational even UN perspective. However the move for any individual to challenge uk government dictats through the uk and then ECJ courts provides more protection (and should reduce political machinations somewhat) and that was an improvement. We are now going backwards where the rights of the individual will superseded by the political decision of the government of the day.

If you really want to debate that one, there's a few dozen sociologists in leading journals who would welcome your contribution breaking it down in the 'political and super rich elite and everyone else' though.

Lol no I think I'll stick to real science . Seriously though I accept its a simplification, but from the current political landscape anyone below elite has little influence as an individual.

My point was that the EU did not grant the British people the vote or workers rights, and wouldn't ever effectively stop it/them being taken away unless we made them our effective government. We got where we are today by our own efforts, and will go wherever it is we will go in our future likewise.

Wouldn't those efforts also include joint the EU to improve people's rights and freedom of movement even further? And we got to where we are all by our own efforts - really have we been living in a silo for 2000 years? Yes the Internet was obviously a uk creation; I'm also fairly certain that m. Cooper was really a British inventor. I'm also sure that Gurkhas, Australians etc etc will be really happy to hear that you don't think they contributed in any way to the development of the U.K.

Historical perspective. That's a borderline ad hominem though. Might want to tone it down a bit.

It's not personal, I'm afraid it applies to a lot of English, that rather toffy nosed superiority saying that we were a beacon, implying everyone else was inferior (and dangerously approaches bias against other cultures). That is English arrogance (and I'm a Brit). It's historical bias that we were great and mighty and righteous.

Sorry, I'm afraid you just shifted those goalposts so far and fast, I blinked and missed it. Where did you put them again?

You need to blink faster, but slowing it down; you commented that for the last 150 years we have been the paragon of democracy, yet that is hardly further from the truth when for the vast majority of 'empire citizens' had no say whatsoever in the uk democratic process as we simply expoited these countries. That is hardly something worthy of aspiring too.

I'm not sure if you're attacking British people of a past period, and if so, which one? Are we going back to the 18th century here? The Edwardian period? When the British working class first got access to that vote? If so, what incarnation? You really need to be more specific.

You referred to the last 150 years, hence so was I

Mate, I'm pointing out that the class struggle and acquisition of rights/democratic power by the British populace is an extensive one that stretches over hundreds of years, and the EU more or less came in at the tail end of it. You can believe that Brexit is all doom and gloom and the end of democracy or the rise of our enslavement by the rich (you've effectively just said that in other words twice more or less), but don't be surprised if when you communicate it here, some other people just hear it as hyperbole.

I don't think it is all doom and gloom. I think it might do the EU some good not having a country that throws it's toys out of the prom at every opportunity. It might also give Scotland the chance to become independent and not be shackled to Westminster anymore . I never said it was the day of democracy or that we were going to end up with enslavement. What you are exaggerating is that we are heading towards a more authoritarian government and based on all evidence so far that means reduced rights to challenge the government. Now you might think authoritarianism is good but I don't and think that further right the Tory is leaning is only going to benefit them and the wealthy that support them . I also think that this path can lead to bad places if it is let go too far especially when the population is misled by populists notions and requires us to be ever vigilant.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yes even human rights is political to some extent, but these are agreed from multinational even UN perspective. However the move for any individual to challenge uk government dictats through the uk and then ECJ courts provides more protection (and should reduce political machinations somewhat) and that was an improvement. We are now going backwards where the rights of the individual will superseded by the political decision of the government of the day.

There is no protection the EU conferred that a British law would not do in equal measure. As long as a piece of legislation is considered legal, it provides as much protection as any other, whether it derives from Brussels or London. If the Government considers it expedient or imperative to break a law, it will do so with all due aplomb regardless of past legislation or future consequence; that's been proven time and again. Just because a court might find against them ten years later rarely stops them, and should it prove to be problematic enough, a piece of counter-legislation can always be written before it gets through the courts. The British Government is ultimately sovereign, and EU membership never progressed to the point it challenged that fact. God only knows we broke their laws enough times.

A Deo rex, a rege lex.

Lol no I think I'll stick to real science . Seriously though I accept its a simplification, but from the current political landscape anyone below elite has little influence as an individual.

You'd be surprised how often even the most powerful find themselves powerless in the grip of fate and circumstance. As Gordon Brown could tell you!

Wouldn't those efforts also include joint the EU to improve people's rights and freedom of movement even further? And we got to where we are all by our own efforts - really have we been living in a silo for 2000 years? Yes the Internet was obviously a uk creation; I'm also fairly certain that m. Cooper was really a British inventor. I'm also sure that Gurkhas, Australians etc etc will be really happy to hear that you don't think they contributed in any way to the development of the U.K.

I hate to say it, but the Gurkhas and Australians didn't help stop us having repeats of the Jarrow strike suppressions. Unless you're interpreting my statement to mean that 'Britain came to where it is today (on everything, including the vote, workers rights, human rights, modern culture and technology, past events and everything conceivable to have affected Britain ever) on it's own.' Which would be a bit absurd.

It's not personal, I'm afraid it applies to a lot of English, that rather toffy nosed superiority saying that we were a beacon, implying everyone else was inferior (and dangerously approaches bias against other cultures). That is English arrogance (and I'm a Brit). It's historical bias that we were great and mighty and righteous.

What toffy nosed superiority? The Russian revolution didn't give British women the vote, and France chopping off their King's head didn't give workers here the right to unionise. The reason we enjoy the rights we do today is because hundreds of thousands of British men and women fought valiantly across the centuries to make it happen, in various increments.

Claiming we were (and still are) a beacon for democracy is a statement of fact, not 'superiority'. I literally just finished reading the statements of a Russian government official from 1904 where he classified Britain as 'the greatest symbol of government by the democratic principle, as opposed to Russia, which was dedicated to the conservative principle'. I read a roughly equivalent statement from a Habsburg official from the 17th century yesterday whilst proofreading a friend's draft journal article. Even today, we're one of a tiny handful of actual democracies across the world.

Not to mention that I'd have to consider it the 'superior' system of governance to begin with in order to utilise it in a snobbish fashion. Which I don't (all forms of governance have merits and demerits). The fact you perceived it that way however, would strongly indicate that it is actually you that holds an opinion of democracy's inherent superiority.

So no. Not arrogance or snobbery. Just awareness of historical context and comparative governmental circumstances across the globe within that historical context.

You need to blink faster, but slowing it down; you commented that for the last 150 years we have been the paragon of democracy, yet that is hardly further from the truth when for the vast majority of 'empire citizens' had no say whatsoever in the uk democratic process as we simply expoited these countries. That is hardly something worthy of aspiring too.

You're judging the past with a contemporary lens (further demonstrating why you interpreted my statement about democracy as being arrogance). If you think of it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being pure dictatorship and 10 absolutely representative democracy where everyone votes on everything, we might have been at 4 in the past as opposed to 7 today, but if everyone else back then was at 2, we would still have been a beacon for the democratic method.

What you are exaggerating is that we are heading towards a more authoritarian government and based on all evidence so far that means reduced rights to challenge the government.

Our government was considerably more draconian in WW2, but it still bounced back afterwards. These things go through ebbs and waves. If we take two steps forward and then one back every decade, we're still one step further at the end of the decade. You worry too much, I think.

 Ketara wrote:


All I'm reading here is ' The British Government doesn't enact laws I like or consider important and the EU does so I prefer them to make my laws', and 'The British people don't pressure their politicians in the manner I would like'.

I can totally understand why in that light you'd prefer to remove responsibility for these things to a body you think takes actions more in line with what you like, but that's no reason to be derogatory to others who might prefer to have powers vested in a body closer to home. There's nothing intrinsically preventing that body from enacting exactly the same legislation as you enjoy Europe passing. Your issue appears to be more that you don't think it will do so, because both it and the people who elect it think differently to you.

Which sucks for you, I'll concede, and I can totally empathise, but y'know, democracy? Sadly, we don't always get what we want out of the political system.

Yes really you've got me I'm just whinging about laws I don't like. Really? What I would really like from the legislation would be that the government showers me with gold so should I be whinging about that!!!! No the reality is that the tories position on a lot of things especially environmental is more it's inconvenient. The EU on the other hand does at least look at scientific advice rather the uks position of sacking the person that is responsible for advising the government on scientific issues and sticking their fingers in the ears and going la la la la or saying they've had enough of experts. I don't stand up on these issues because it's what I like it's because of what the scientific evidence indicates is going to happen if we carry on the same course . I'd much prefer to pay more now and save the future, rather than exploit now and damn the future. The EU at least tries and changes things for the better for the long term environmentally. Pretty much any piece of environmental legislation has had to be dragged out of Westminster whilst they kick and scream about how much it would cost.

But yes you are right we don't always get what we want out of democracy, but there's no point being sorry for me. I won't really see the consequences (except maybe the antibiotics issue). If you want to be sorry for anyone be sorry for your children and grandchildren or if you must my niece and nephew and their children because they are going to be the ones that struggle with the consequences of our actions. It doesn't really matter you are right - the earth will continue, the only question really is how long until we make ourselves extinct because of own greed. In the meantime please carry on eating the shark fin and overfished cod soup, wear clothes made from lion fur, gloves from panda hands and jewelery made from Ivory because you might as well

 Ketara wrote:


There is no protection the EU conferred that a British law would not do in equal measure. As long as a piece of legislation is considered legal, it provides as much protection as any other, whether it derives from Brussels or London. If the Government considers it expedient or imperative to break a law, it will do so with all due aplomb regardless of past legislation or future consequence; that's been proven time and again. Just because a court might find against them ten years later rarely stops them, and should it prove to be problematic enough, a piece of counter-legislation can always be written before it gets through the courts. The British Government is ultimately sovereign, and EU membership never progressed to the point it challenged that fact. God only knows we broke their laws enough times.

Try telling that to these people.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/458625.stm

You'd be surprised how often even the most powerful find themselves powerless in the grip of fate and circumstance. As Gordon Brown could tell you!

What has this got do with the rights of an individual

I hate to say it, but the Gurkhas and Australians didn't help stop us having repeats of the Jarrow strike suppressions. Unless you're interpreting my statement to mean that 'Britain came to where it is today (on everything, including the vote, workers rights, human rights, modern culture and technology, past events and everything conceivable to have affected Britain ever) on it's own.' Which would be a bit absurd.

My advice to you then would be not to make absurd statements then!!

What toffy nosed superiority? The Russian revolution didn't give British women the vote, and France chopping off their King's head didn't give workers here the right to unionise. The reason we enjoy the rights we do today is because hundreds of thousands of British men and women fought valiantly across the centuries to make it happen, in various increments.

Erh yeah your comments are sort of making my point for me, but I'm not really sure you are seeing it so I'll leave this here. Except to say It's hundreds of thousands of human that have fought valiantly, there's no difference between any of them when they are a skeleton.

Claiming we were (and still are) a beacon for democracy is a statement of fact, not 'superiority'. I literally just finished reading the statements of a Russian government official from 1904 where he classified Britain as 'the greatest symbol of government by the democratic principle, as opposed to Russia, which was dedicated to the conservative principle'. I read a roughly equivalent statement from a Habsburg official from the 17th century yesterday whilst proofreading a friend's draft journal article. Even today, we're one of a tiny handful of actual democracies across the world.

From whose perspective? It is snobbery to say we are a beacon (i.e. The light in darkness). Why is our democracy the beacon and not new Zealand's, Ireland's or Australia's. You are just putting this countries on a pedestal and telling 'we the bestist' for no their reason than it is the English system. Can you say you have tried and experienced all the other democracies in the world long enough to even state this? Also just because someone says in their opinion that the system is the best doesn't mean it is. Would you just accept that the dog over there is the cutest on my say so without understanding why I'm saying it and my motivations?

Not to mention that I'd have to consider it the 'superior' system of governance to begin with in order to utilise it in a snobbish fashion. Which I don't (all forms of governance have merits and demerits). The fact you perceived it that way however, would strongly indicate that it is actually you that holds an opinion of democracy's inherent superiority.

Erh, em not sure your are making any sense here You state that British democracy should be considered an exemplar and a light in the darkness, and I argue that you can't say that and for anything pre-ww2 there would be many countries that would disagree given that they had no voice in such democracy. And hence that makes me a closet democrat, how does that make any sense. My personal view is that it is a poor system but it's the best we have but I'm not sure how this pertains to snobbery over our system being the best?

So no. Not arrogance or snobbery. Just awareness of historical context and comparative governmental circumstances across the globe within that historical context.

Whilst conveniently ignoring that for the vast majority of the time the only people in that empire that could vote were isolated to a single power and resource hungry land mass!

You're judging the past with a contemporary lens (further demonstrating why you interpreted my statement about democracy as being arrogance). If you think of it on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being pure dictatorship and 10 absolutely representative democracy where everyone votes on everything, we might have been at 4 in the past as opposed to 7 today, but if everyone else back then was at 2, we would still have been a beacon for the democratic method.

Well your proving the arrogance point again. You've instantly made the assumption that you can rate different styles of government without understanding of the individual circumstances. What makes ours 7 now and 4 in the past. Is a benign dictator better than an ultra authoritarian democracy? Is representative democracy a ten when the voters have little understanding of what they actually voting for? We make the assumption that our system is a beacon but refuse to even entertain any others - that is simply arrogance.

Our government was considerably more draconian in WW2, but it still bounced back afterwards. These things go through ebbs and waves. If we take two steps forward and then one back every decade, we're still one step further at the end of the decade. You worry too much, I think.

The moment we let our guard down is the moment we risk the future. I would prefer to challenge and worry about political direction and it not happen than sit quietly and for it to happen because I've ignored it for too long. And here we come back to the original point. The populace needs to be able to bring the government of the day to task through an independent legal system. The moment the government becomes its own oversight committee is a worrying time.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes really you've got me I'm just whinging about laws I don't like. Really?.....No the reality is that the tories position on a lot of things especially environmental is more it's inconvenient. The EU on the other hand does at least look at scientific advice rather the uks position...

You literally just got sarcastic about my interpretation of your comments and then reissued them in different words with identical meaning.

You prefer legislation from the EU because in your eyes, British legislation is incorrect. It diverges from what you would like to occur. Ignoring the fact that you're specifically talking about the Tory party instead of the collective British system, you are stating that the Government do not have the position you would like on things like environmental issues, but the EU does (you have literally just said this). Your issue is not so much where the power is vested, be it here, or Brussels, but the fact that the people wielding the power are not wielding it according to your personal ethics and political priorities.

Which I repeat, I can sympathise with here, but practically everyone has that issue who has a view on anything. Your political priorities might be according to what you believe is necessary for the future of the country as opposed to for selfish personal reasons, but they remain just that; your views aligned with what you consider important. Your issue here is not the vesting of power in the executive of the British Parliament, but that neither that body nor the electorate who places people there give sufficient weight and impetus to what you consider important, and so you wish for power to reside with one which does.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Try telling that to these people.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/458625.stm

They are merely fortunate the British Government did not consider the issue important enough to ignore the EU on altogether. Like, for example, the UK ban on prisoner voting rights, which has gone through the EU courts four times and just been flat out ignored. As many other EU countries do on other issues dear to them.

If the British Government wishes badly enough to make you disappear tomorrow, my friend, it will occur however many European laws rule against it.

What has this got do with the rights of an individual

It was from the chain of conversation relating to the class system and the power of the 'elite', not the rights of the individual.

My advice to you then would be not to make absurd statements then!!

I didn't. You took a statement about something specific, and misread it as a general one.

Erh yeah your comments are sort of making my point for me, but I'm not really sure you are seeing it so I'll leave this here. Except to say It's hundreds of thousands of human that have fought valiantly, there's no difference between any of them when they are a skeleton..../From whose perspective? It is snobbery to say we are a beacon (i.e. The light in darkness). Why is our democracy the beacon and not new Zealand's, Ireland's or Australia's. You are just putting this countries on a pedestal and telling 'we the bestist' for no their reason than it is the English system. Can you say you have tried and experienced all the other democracies in the world long enough to even state this? Also just because someone says in their opinion that the system is the best doesn't mean it is. Would you just accept that the dog over there is the cutest on my say so without understanding why I'm saying it and my motivations?

Those countries are also beacons of democracy. I never claimed ours was currently the 'best' or 'brightest'. You seem to be interpreting the word 'beacon' in some sort of highly vague metaphorical sense, whereas I am utilising in a strictly functional form; i.e. a highly identifiable item to mark a location. Radio beacons do not shine 'light in darkness', after all. We are a beacon for democracy in that we are a democracy in a world mostly without them (or without effective/functional ones, at least). It would be possible to contend that we are an especially visible democracy (or more effective beacon) based upon our extensive history of being more democratic than other nation-states, but I didn't do that.

Erh, em not sure your are making any sense here You state that British democracy should be considered an exemplar and a light in the darkness,

Nope. I said it was a beacon for democracy.

and I argue that you can't say that and for anything pre-ww2 there would be many countries that would disagree given that they had no voice in such democracy.

One can be democratic without being fully democratic. The contrast becomes more evident (or the beacon more apparent) when no other systems are even remotely democratic. The British Empire was infinitely more democratic, than say, Ghengis Khan, or the court of Charles IV.

And hence that makes me a closet democrat, how does that make any sense. My personal view is that it is a poor system but it's the best we have but I'm not sure how this pertains to snobbery over our system being the best?

You've instantly interpreted my words as alluding to the superiority of democracy when they do no such thing. The only way it is possible to reach that interpretation in this scenario is if you yourself hold such viewpoints. If I said Russia in 1905 was a beacon for conservative government (as one of the statesmen I mentioned said), you would not have instantly jumped to assume, I should think, that I was preaching the inherent superiority of a repressive regime. Yet with the substitution of democracy and Britain, you have done no less.

Whilst conveniently ignoring that for the vast majority of the time the only people in that empire that could vote were isolated to a single power and resource hungry land mass!Well your proving the arrogance point again. You've instantly made the assumption that you can rate different styles of government without understanding of the individual circumstances. What makes ours 7 now and 4 in the past. Is a benign dictator better than an ultra authoritarian democracy? Is representative democracy a ten when the voters have little understanding of what they actually voting for? We make the assumption that our system is a beacon but refuse to even entertain any others - that is simply arrogance.

You've done it again here. You've jumped to assume that '10' is a positive figure, and '0' a negative one. I could have swapped the placement of the two around just as easily, or merely designated 'Democracy' and 'Dictatorship' as 'X' and 'Y' points respectively.

In reality, any graph attempting to track political systems would be doomed to failure with only two end points(it would need to be 3D for a start...); I was merely trying to utilise a simple visual aid for you since you've said you have a background in statistics.

To put it bluntly squire, I'm quite literally a professionally trained historian. My job is to interpret the past without looking through a contemporary lens; as much as is possible (it's impossible to eradicate completely). You're trying to ascribe a position to me here called 'historical whiggism', which died a very slow brutal death in my field about sixty years ago, which any competent historian can spot twenty miles off, and would purge with Exterminatus if at all possible.

Fortunately (or sadly, depending on your perspective?), it's reached the point these days where I find it difficult to view the past in anything but the most neutral and cynical way possible. I don't view democracy as an inherently superior system, or even just a superior one. Other forms of Government are more expedient for different scenarios (an effective dictatorship is almost always more effective in times of war, for example), and as morality changes every half a century, there's little constant to be used for judging the past with a moral yardstick. I think any faith I had in regarding liberalism, human rights, and democracy as 'better' in any way finally vanished the day I found out where modern perceptions of them come from....

But I digress!

t we let our guard down is the moment we risk the future. I would prefer to challenge and worry about political direction and it not happen than sit quietly and for it to happen because I've ignored it for too long. And here we come back to the original point. The populace needs to be able to bring the government of the day to task through an independent legal system. The moment the government becomes its own oversight committee is a worrying time.

But you only have this issue because of the party currently in Westminster. Were they only taking actions in line with what you approve, you would not be fighting nearly so hard for the ability to 'bring the government of the day to task'. The fact is, you will have more democratic say over our domestic Government's policies then you did over those of the EU. You have infinitely more tools with with which to pressure it than you would the European Commission and Parliament.

The only reason you care about this is because our current Government (you keep specifying Tories when the odds are that the Tories will not be in power in ten years) does not take the actions you approve of, or hold the political priorities you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news, Hammond and Javid are ditching austerity and saying that they'll pursue house building as a priority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37536943

Probably the most logical thing to do. We're entering a critical period of transition for the economy, and appropriate stimulation to keep it healthy during the Brexit period is absolutely vital.

@ Ketara

You're a historian? Great to hear!

I'm a graduate of history too, but I wouldn't go as so far to call myself a historian...yet.

And excellently argued points too by the way.

Expect whirlwind to try to refute your professional opinion!!



Makes sense, we need the housing.

My biggest thing now is the funding of the NHS - it's been starved of funds for quite some time (i suspect to weaken it and allow a private takeover of services for massive profit from the taxpayer) and we should be looking after the notion - it's one of the things which makes britain 'great' - that and the welfare state.

My grandparents sacrificed their health in the wars in Europe so i find the notion of "a coutry fit for heroes" to be compelling and rightcheous.

edit due to ninja'-ing

To put it bluntly squire, I'm quite literally a professionally trained historian. My job is to interpret the past without looking through a contemporary lens; as much as is possible (it's impossible to eradicate completely). You're trying to ascribe a position to me here called 'historical whiggism', which died a very slow brutal death in my field about sixty years ago, which any competent historian can spot twenty miles off, and would purge with Exterminatus if at all possible.

You're not the only person that's done some history in their time

I still think there's some mileage in the Whig view of history.

But back OT.

For years, I've always been amused by the mantra that says Labour bankrupts the economy, and the Tories save it, but listening to Hammond today, I can only conclude that the Tories are just as bad.

As much as I appreciated the chance to vote leave on June 23rd, this whole charade from Cameron to May, and the Tories' vision for the post BREXIT future, has been the Tories shamefully putting party interests before national interests.

And that is why I loathe, nay hate, the Conservative party.

I'm not opposed to Conservative ideology, just this corrupt party that will sell anything that's not nailed down, and will flog this country to the highest bidder.

 Ketara wrote:


You prefer legislation from the EU because in your eyes, British legislation is incorrect. It diverges from what you would like to occur. Ignoring the fact that you're specifically talking about the Tory party instead of the collective British system, you are stating that the Government do not have the position you would like on things like environmental issues, but the EU does (you have literally just said this). Your issue is not so much where the power is vested, be it here, or Brussels, but the fact that the people wielding the power are not wielding it according to your personal ethics and political priorities.

I highlight tories because they are particularly bad in this regard for the last 45 years or so. Labour when in power were much more forward thinking both in terms in engaging with the EU over environmental issues but with the U.K. community. The tories basically see environmental legislation as a hindrance. Unfortunately as labour is going backwards I fear that the future decade governments might be dominated by the tories. The EU takes a much more much more long term, *scientific*, view on the issues than the UK. So if anything my political priorities on these issues are use the scientific evidence to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just now but in the future. We ignore such evidence at our peril. If that is considered my ethics then guilty as charged, but then I'd take that over any day over the lets just carry on regardless and ignore the evidence and deal with the consequences later.

Which I repeat, I can sympathise with here, but practically everyone has that issue who has a view on anything. Your political priorities might be according to what you believe is necessary for the future of the country as opposed to for selfish personal reasons

My selfish personal reasons??? Riiiight. Surely selfish reasons would be to fish the North Sea to the max to keep fish prices low, or use low efficient bulbs and damn the co2 emissions even though it would cost me more to buy them. Obviously creating a sustainable fishing quota so that the local fishermen can continue working in that area if they want for however long they want rather than overfishing the North Sea and causing a collapse in the same way as the Grand Banks catastrophe is me being 'selfish'. That I would happily choose lower powered more sustainable electrically so that we can attempt to restrict carbon emissions so that in two generations lowlands aren't flooded the deserts don't expand and we try and avoid mass water and food shortages across areas in the globe is me being selfish. On the other hand I guess you can call me selfish if you think that not benefiting the few now with unsustainable fishing and electrical manufacturing practices over the billions in the future it would benefit. But I'm starting to think that you believe fishing stocks will instantly replenish and that climate change isn't happening?

They are merely fortunate the British Government did not consider the issue important enough to ignore the EU on altogether. Like, for example, the UK ban on prisoner voting rights, which has gone through the EU courts four times and just been flat out ignored. As many other EU countries do on other issues dear to them.

So you are saying the ECJ does protect people's rights more than the UK government does. Thank you for conceding the point.

It was from the chain of conversation relating to the class system and the power of the 'elite', not the rights of the individual.

But so generic it could have meant anything.

I didn't. You took a statement about something specific, and misread it as a general one.

Hmmm lets go back to the quote shall we... "We got where we are today by our own efforts , and we will go wherever it is we will go in our future likewise". That seems pretty specific to me and that no other nationals have ever contributed to these efforts. Maybe you should just accept you made a mistake and not backtrack?

We are a beacon for democracy in that we are a democracy in a world mostly without them (or without effective/functional ones, at least).

Except that's not what you said...which was that "This country has been a beacon *of* democracy..." not for democracy Andalusia picking a dictionary at random in this context (Macmillan) where beacon means "someone or something that encourages people and gives them a good example to follow".. The difference between the use of *of* or *for* in this case. By using *of* you are referring to the uk system being a beacon and lauding it over other types of democracy; *for* on the other hand means you are lauding democracy over other types of government. So either (a) you are deliberately changing what you said, (b) you used sloppy language and this has been an argument over interpretation or (c) you had a drink before you wrote it

Nope. I said it was a beacon for democracy.

As above, no you didn't you've amended the context.

One can be democratic without being fully democratic. The contrast becomes more evident (or the beacon more apparent) when no other systems are even remotely democratic. The British Empire was infinitely more democratic, than say, Ghengis Khan, or the court of Charles IV.

But then were then either of these any worse than the British empire when all the methods for all three parties effectively came down to benefiting the few whilst penalising the many? The only difference being the few in the British empire case could hide behind the democracy argument?

You've instantly interpreted my words as alluding to the superiority of democracy when they do no such thing. The only way it is possible to reach that interpretation in this scenario is if you yourself hold such viewpoints. If I said Russia in 1905 was a beacon for conservative government (as one of the statesmen I mentioned said), you would not have instantly jumped to assume, I should think, that I was preaching the inherent superiority of a repressive regime. Yet with the substitution of democracy and Britain, you have done no less.

I can only conclude you have been drinking when you wrote this because it makes no sense. You're the one that's been talking about beacons of anything. You're the one that was promoting brother british version being a beacon *of* democracy and I challenged why British democracy should be considered superior to other countries versions *of* democracy and that this was poor version of English arrogance. Why this has got anything to do with other forms of government I have no idea and you are simply not making any sense in terms of the whole conversation???

You've done it again here. You've jumped to assume that '10' is a positive figure, and '0' a negative one. I could have swapped the placement of the two around just as easily, or merely designated 'Democracy' and 'Dictatorship' as 'X' and 'Y' points respectively.

Did I? Please tell me where I said which values were the positive ones and which were the negative ones. I just commented on the figures you already provided and questioned why they should be allocated figures in the first place. Maybe it's you that's interpreting the values and beading my response in your own mind?

In reality, any graph attempting to track political systems would be doomed to failure with only two end points(it would need to be 3D for a start...); I was merely trying to utilise a simple visual aid for you since you've said you have a background in statistics.

Erm a scale of 1 - 10 isn't statistics that's just number counting

To put it bluntly squire, I'm quite literally a professionally trained historian. My job is to interpret the past without looking through a contemporary lens; as much as is possible (it's impossible to eradicate completely). You're trying to ascribe a position to me here called 'historical whiggism', which died a very slow brutal death in my field about sixty years ago, which any competent historian can spot twenty miles off, and would purge with Exterminatus if at all possible.

To be honest i wouldn't care if you were the Queen of Sheba, once you start saying that British democracy is better than other countries democracies then you've lost perspective and is something that we English are very bad for in terms of arrogance. In reality claiming how you were trained is another example many people use in the uk, rather than producing an argument it's just piece of paper waving.

But you only have this issue because of the party currently in Westminster. Were they only taking actions in line with what you approve, you would not be fighting nearly so hard for the ability to 'bring the government of the day to task'. The fact is, you will have more democratic say over our domestic Government's policies then you did over those of the EU. You have infinitely more tools with with which to pressure it than you would the European Commission and Parliament.

Not really I was just as noisy about some of the actions Labour took in their time. Depends what you mean by approve. I approve of actions that use evidence as a basis for decision making. I disapprove of decisions made on populist isolationist and paranoid rhetoric that goes for any political unit. I particularly disapprove of the current government as they rarely use evidence to make their decisions to the point of telling people they've had enough of experts. I've seen way too many projects fall over because of that approach and fear that although they may be populist decisions now they will make the future much more difficult for everyone.

I'd also disagree about whether I will have more democratic say with the EU than the UK. My vote in the uk can be worth nothing in the fptp system, yet know that my vote is equally valid as anyone else's. I know that the EU listens to the consultations it's issues whereas the current uk approach is to do lip service only to the consultation process. I have much more faith in the EU than i do our current government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news, Hammond and Javid are ditching austerity and saying that they'll pursue house building as a priority

When 'mental gymnastics' becomes an olympic event we'll have a few professional athletes in this forum!

They'll be deaf from the screeching sound of goalposts being moved, but they'll be pro's nonetheless.


Edit: Whirlwind has a 'professional opinion'?? Nah, i don't beleive it!

Edit 2: the modus operandi of 'builders' (stunning generalization there, whirlwind; the bricklayer and plasterer sat next to me want to see you in person) is to get hold of any old bit of land and build as many small dwellings on it as possible. because they are the most sellable and easiest to produce.
The issues surrounding the building of a house are manifold (look into the saga of the woolaway housing replacement plan in gloucestershire) and it is one of the very few areas where 'chucking money at it' will actually get things moving.

Dear Lord, this is getting absurd. I'm going to have to spoiler this for the reading pleasure of anyone who doesn't care (i.e. most people).

I think a lot of people on this thread, i.e everybody

Is overlooking one important point: the Tories are tinkering around the edges, they seem to think that it's business as usual, but BREXIT has and should change everything.

I keep banging the drum, but we need a bold vision for this nation if we are to compete with the rest of the world.

Hammond promising 2 billion here, a few hundred million there, is the clearest sign of political abdication you are likely to see.

Nothing has or will ever change with the Tories, we're looking at decades of managed decline....

What i wouldn't give for a first class opposition party...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I keep banging the drum, but we need a bold vision for this nation if we are to compete with the rest of the world.

And if you don't find this "bold vision"? Then what?

This is why voting to leave without having even a tiny fragment of a plan in place first was monumentally stupid.

Blame Cameron for that. He failed to prepare for that outcome. Luckily however details of a plan and a date are starting to emerge.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blame Cameron for that. He failed to prepare for that outcome. Luckily however details of a plan and a date are starting to emerge.

He was not the one advocating for brexit though. The ones that wanted are the ones that should have had plan other than hope EU gives them what they want without having to give anything back. Access to market without free movement...HAH! Keep dreaming

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blame Cameron for that. He failed to prepare for that outcome. Luckily however details of a plan and a date are starting to emerge.

True, these are emerging, but I'm talking about the grand scheme of things.

If Hammond had said, I want 1 million new homes by 2025. I want the biggest shake up of housing since 1945. I want a revamp of greenfield and brownfield land. I want housing benefit looked at, an end to tax-payers subsidizing landlords, fairer rent, and better use of our homes i.e putting thousands of empty properties to use, an end to land speculation etc etc ...

That's a vision, that's something to get behind, that's something that changes the UK for the better. That is BOLD!

We didn't get a horsegak fraction of that.

We got wishy washy promises of 2 billion here, a thousand houses in Bolton there.

We might give the sector a bag of jellybeans in two years time, if they're lucky...

It was pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I keep banging the drum, but we need a bold vision for this nation if we are to compete with the rest of the world.

And if you don't find this "bold vision"? Then what?

This is why voting to leave without having even a tiny fragment of a plan in place first was monumentally stupid.

If it all goes wrong, I'm heading for Sweden or Finland


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blame Cameron for that. He failed to prepare for that outcome. Luckily however details of a plan and a date are starting to emerge.

He was not the one advocating for brexit though. The ones that wanted are the ones that should have had plan other than hope EU gives them what they want without having to give anything back. Access to market without free movement...HAH! Keep dreaming

Don't laugh, I might decide to move to Finland

 Whirlwind wrote:

Try telling that to these people.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/458625.stm

wtf? I've heard of the US Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, but I had no idea the British military had a similar ban on gays. And it doesn't make sense anyway - presumably, they ban gays to prevent inappropriate fraternization within units. But by that same logic, shouldn't they then ban women too, or segregate the armed services by gender?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I keep banging the drum, but we need a bold vision for this nation if we are to compete with the rest of the world.

And if you don't find this "bold vision"? Then what?

This is why voting to leave without having even a tiny fragment of a plan in place first was monumentally stupid.

Its difficult to plan for something when the guy in 10 Downing Street denies you access to government and civil service resources. Didn't Cameron put up a lot of obstacles for the Leave elements of his party?

Considering that was from 17 years ago, it wouldn't surprise me to find out the military structure was very different indeed when it came to men and women serving together.

That was 17 years ago? Then why are we discussing it? Is the policy still in place? Is that link even relevant anymore?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Didn't Cameron put up a lot of obstacles for the Leave elements of his party?

And?

Anyone can up with a plan, and the leavers had more than enough cash to fund something more concrete than the "£350 millon per week to the NHS" gak followed by deafening silence that we actually got.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That was 17 years ago? Then why are we discussing it? Is the policy still in place? Is that link even relevant anymore?

Because it is an example of people being able to overturn unfair UK law through appeals to a court which acts above those of the UKs. Reading up on that particular case and the UK courts had claimed that they were unable to overturn the ban despite believing it was not justified.

So without that higher court, that unfair ban may not have been overturned until later than it eventually was.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Is the policy still in place? Is that link even relevant anymore?

As I understand it, the MoD, Military and pretty much all government institutions and the civil service actually really care a great deal about being on the "right side of history" nowadays, as the article puts it.

I think there's a few reasons for this.

1) There's a software engineering phrase, "eating your own dog food." There's a lot of equality and diversity legislation out there. A hypothetical company would do a cost/benefit analysis to work out whether it's cheaper getting round that legislation (or doing the bare minimum), or obeying it, often by Rules As Written. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the time companies do the former. I remember hearing stories about taxi firms all having "broken" wheelchair ramps, meaning that they're sorry they're unable to take on disabled passengers. Sure, they put the ramps in, but the time taking a disabled passenger in and out of the cab costs them money, so.... Find a way round it. The Government has to "eat their own dog food" - Dodges, most of the time at least, aren't going to work for them.

2) Actually, government pay is pretty darn crap, especially when you look at professional jobs. - Software Engineer you're looking at £19000 to £30000 salary in government. Elsewhere, you're starting at £35k and the sky is the limit. As such, the government can't actually 'compete' wagewise, as such it's in their major economic interest to actually get rid of various barriers like who you sleep with or the colour of your skin.

3) "Because we want to improve accessibility / reduce artificial barriers / not-be-donkeycaves" is probably a far more palatable response to the treasury (who have to do the same thing) when they spend taxpayers money than it would be to a legion of shareholders of a private company whose own money is on the line.

 Compel wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Is the policy still in place? Is that link even relevant anymore?

As I understand it, the MoD, Military and pretty much all government institutions and the civil service actually really care a great deal about being on the "right side of history" nowadays..

That's primarily due to our own self-induced cultural brainwashing, funnily enough.

There's a reason that an Englishman from the 1820's would have most things in common with an englishman from the 1860's who'd have most things in common with an englishman from the 1900's who'd have most things in common with an englishman from the 1940's, yet all would have remarkably little in common with someone from today. And technology/the proliferation of education is only a very small part of that.

Remind me never to watch another Conservative conference speech, because Andrea Leadsom's speech was batgak crazy.

I think the Tories have well and truly lost the plot.

Her solution to a future shortage of workers to pick vegetables, was a return to some misty eyed version of 1950s Britain.

British workers whistling jolly tunes as they march on the fields. The vicar leaning over the hedge of his cottage to say hello.

Matron cycling past on her bike, on her way to watch the cricket and have a warm beer with John Major...

OK, I exaggerate slightly, but this was the tone, this was the bullgak we were getting!

I half expected her to tell the British people to dig for victory!

God us help us.

On top of that, we had Bojo telling us to booze our way to economic prosperity, because we buy a lot of wine from France and Italy...

Spain makes a lot of wine too, also Germany and there is some great stuff coming from Greece and Hungary. Belgium has a massive trade in top quality beers.

I'm just looking forwards to the day I can walk into an off licence and get some of these awesome New World wines from the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, that I keep reading about on the internet.

Fortunately, the UK can offset this balance of payments with its numerous whisky and gin distilleries.

The Uk has always had plenty of vineyards, many awards too.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Didn't Cameron put up a lot of obstacles for the Leave elements of his party?

And?

Anyone can up with a plan, and the leavers had more than enough cash to fund something more concrete than the "£350 millon per week to the NHS" gak followed by deafening silence that we actually got.

Half and half. Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

By the same measure though, considering the amount of money that sloshing around both sides, you'd have thought 'Leave' would have bunged a few hundred thousand quid at a think-tank six months beforehand to come up with a reasoned and well thought out leave strategy. It's not as if Boris Johnson on his own couldn't have funded something like that, if he'd truly been behind it as a political principle. But we all know he and most of the others never actually thought for a minute that they'd win and be held accountable, they were just trying to ride what they thought would be a 30-40% populist wave of sentiment for their own glory and self-aggrandisement.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Didn't Cameron put up a lot of obstacles for the Leave elements of his party?

And?

Anyone can up with a plan, and the leavers had more than enough cash to fund something more concrete than the "£350 millon per week to the NHS" gak followed by deafening silence that we actually got.

Half and half. Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

By the same measure though, considering the amount of money that sloshing around both sides, you'd have thought 'Leave' would have bunged a few hundred thousand quid at a think-tank six months beforehand to come up with a reasoned and well thought out leave strategy. It's not as if Boris Johnson on his own couldn't have funded something like that, if he'd truly been behind it as a political principle. But we all know he and most of the others never actually thought for a minute that they'd win and be held accountable, they were just trying to ride what they thought would be a 30-40% populist wave of sentiment for their own glory and self-aggrandisement.

Plan doesn't need to be complete for it to be plan. Some guidelines they could have done if they had wanted. They didn't want. No point blaming others for your own lack of will to do what you could do.