BBC Blog Network

User Profile

olyus1

Listed below are comments made by olyus1 between Friday, 23rd May 2008 and Friday, 12th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Changes to international pages 7:39pm on 12 Jun 2009 I really, really dislike the fact I am forced to see the expanded UK section. Most of the news is completely trivial and of little consequence in the grander scheme. Surely, The Sun an inform me of the latest "scandal" or celebrity tattle. I want more international news and more analysis. The changes you have made put everyone in the stupid boat and I can assure you it is not appreciated.
Send a message to Brussels 8:07pm on 06 Mar 2009 RomeStu

Regarding your head falling off, I'm not sure if I follow.
I say: "Then no doubt their (sic) will be some sort of PR excerice perhaps mixed with some level of actual low level change."
You say: "It's a shameless bit of PR fluff and nothing will change because of it."

Doesn't it seem we're saying more or less the same thing? The difference being perhaps I think they might do something to reinforce the PR exercise.

I live in Finland. The EU, amongst broader politics is discussed quite bit, the idea that most people would urinate or swear at the guys in Brussels is absurd. People would want to have an intelligent discussion, and whilst I do know plenty of anti-EU types, they would be embarrassed by the notion of what is the assumption regarding anti-EU types in Britain. I can't imagine them thinking, after realizing what Mark talks about will probably actually happen in the UK, the thought that of being associated with people from that side of argument would be a good thing. The fact is that europhobes in the UK have very little shame, and will gladly be the angry little men shaking their fist, swearing and urinating in anything EU, but ultimately no county, country or the EU is run by them, so really, who has the last laugh?
Did the summit fail the East? 8:42pm on 04 Mar 2009 #67 threnodio

Thanks (kiitos) Jukka Rohila, more of less what I was going to say. People do have real choices regarding who they send to Westminster they just choose not to send anti-EU candidates. Even within the main stream parties, you can't tell me there aren't plenty of people in the conservatives who would like to withdraw. Again, what happens to them? Why haven't they taken power in the UK?
It's the same old irony. People on this message board complain like hell that the EU is foisting things on them, namely Lisbon, when in reality national governments choose how/whether Lisbon is adopted. The answer to Lisbon in these peoples eyes? Give power back to the parliaments! It is the very fact that we have national parliaments elected by the people that is leading to Lisbon. Deal with.

In the mean time, why not focus your energy on making British parliamentary elections (FPTP) as democratic as European elections (proportional)? I think that is a project we could all agree on. You may find out if your secret oppressed majorities really exist. I get to watch people with no political responsibility, in regards to trade, diplomacy etc... having to start accepting it and acting accordingly.
Send a message to Brussels 8:30pm on 04 Mar 2009 I'm surprised by your reading of the situation Mark. I don't doubt that many people will find it amusing to send streams of expletives to Brussels. However, in that respect it will appear no different than for any any MP, or rather the person who reads their post. People with very little constructive to say, or indeed, complete sentences, and wish only to send abuse, will simply find their post in the bin. Those with constructive thoughts will probably be sorted into piles and someone from one of the bigger piles will be presented a representative of a group complaining of that problem. Then no doubt their will be some sort of PR excerice perhaps mixed with some level of actual low level change. I think it is quite likely people with constructive but anti-EU feelings will also be chosen, they are gold dust, the EU can been seen to be listening to criticism and addressing some concern, real or imaginary. Just look at the redefining of fruit and vegetable standards a few months ago. As for the people behind this being naive, I think you make a surprisingly simplistic analysis of the situation. I also think you view this in a very British way, that any contact between the elected and electors must be confrontational. Living abroad from the UK, in the other parts of the EU, I can say for sure that some people will treat this seriously and their voice might well be heard. Ultimately though, with a constant stream of expletives and urine, almost begging to be ignored, is it Britain that's laughing or the rest of the EU?
Did the summit fail the East? 2:25pm on 04 Mar 2009 #2 MarcusAuriliusII

"That gap exists in the wealthier EU states like Britain because the leaders never got permission through a democratic vote to sign up for the obligations under those treaties. This is because when you come down to it, the UK like the other EU members is not a democratic country at all but a despotic tyranny"

LOL. Firstly, elections are held every few years in the UK. People can choose who they vote for. Sure there has been no referendum on European affairs since the UK join the EC, but there isn't a referendum on nearly every vote that goes through parliament. The whole concept is known as parliamentary democracy, most political scientists will tell you there are some important differences between that and "despotic tyranny". Secondly, given that people have voted for their representatives and could have chosen someone pledging to withdraw from the EU, and haven't, perhaps your first step in "respecting the will of the people" could be to acknowledge that not everyone takes such a simplistic view of democracy, economics, trade relations, diplomacy, global warming etc... than to think these problems will be easier to solve as a small country with next to no power, compared to say, USA, EU, Russia, China, India, Brazil etc...

The fact you are willing to call member states of the EU as tyrannical and despotic shows how much you must be a product of western democracy. Anyone who has experienced true tyranny and despotism wouldn't use the words so lightly, or so preposterously. Have you ever considered why the EU makes democracy and free speech a prerequisite for membership? That would seem to make their plans harder if they wanted despotic, tyrannical power.

p.s Time for a history level too I'm afraid, Alexander the Great may have wished to conquer Europe, though he is best known for trying to conquer Asia (to the extent he knew of its size), so unfortunately he, Hitler and Stalin can't discuss failed European domination over bridge.
Thinking about children and crime 3:47pm on 05 Feb 2009 I find it hilarious the comments here by Brits that the Finnish model is too soft and we need more deterrents. Or the "what about the victims" talk. What country are you living in? Britain has some of the worst rates of violent crime amongst youth in the developed world. Finland has some of the lowest. A Finnish teacher I know took a placement in the UK and quit after 2 months. She couldn't believe that teachers in the UK shout at students, declaring they had no genuine authority or respect in the classroom, just what they got get through fear and coercion. One reader commented above that they didn't care about the people being punished just stopping crime. Actually, they are too blinded by their anger to see what they promote creates victims by not reforming those going to jail. Finland I have read, has the second lowest rate of reoffending in the developed world, Britain one of the worst. This is in spite of the fact the UK has some of the most barbaric sentences and conditions in the developed world and Finland the contrary. It seems so many people in Britain are saying "our situation is terrible, more of the same!". I left Britain for Finland years ago and the difference is dramatic. I quickly realized I had lived in an incredibly angry and aggressive society for years without even knowing it. It seems in the UK people are looking for any excuse to be aggressive/violent (including many of the self-righteous above) whereas in Finland people are looking for any reason not to be aggressive/violent. It says it all that in the UK parents are still allowed to be violent in softer forms ("smacking") towards their own children. In Finland, and indeed much of Europe now, most people would struggle to comprehend not only why this is allowed, by more why any parent would want to do that. I consider myself lucky to have gotten out. A lot of Brits I know who have lived in Finland for a while say they feel it wrong to put Finland and Britain in the same category as first world countries, that they are so fundamentally different they feel there needs to be some word to show different levels of political difference. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I totally understand what they are getting at. Britain feels, sort of, well, primitive. I see it just looking at the arguments here. I feel truly sorry for those who live their whole lives in the UK, never realizing the stressed and hateful circle they find themselves in. Those who do realize that something is not right, in true British form, blame someone else, usually young people. For all those calling for harsher and harder punishments, surely even they must acknowledge they have failed miserably in the UK.
Labour law wrangling 1:04pm on 04 Feb 2009 "...the compromise plan proposes half the jobs going to British workers..."

I wish to find out more regarding the plan (in its final form) and the legal implications, but if it goes ahead as such it seems to be clearly in breach of EU labour laws that deny the ability to discriminate by nationality in hiring. If so, I intend to file a complaint against the firms involved for discriminatory labour practices.
It seems insane people will be given jobs regardless of their merits, and applied over the whole economy it could be disasterous, especially at a time when we really can't afford inefficiencies.
If the striking workers think they can use illegal actions to force the whole country to roll over and give into protectionism they may be right, but I'll fight them every step of the way. We have come too far to given to this nonsense now.
European workers for European jobs? 4:56pm on 02 Feb 2009 It's not really clear to me what the striking workers want, nor the political leaders who pander to them.
As pointed out, the Italian firm involved won the contract in a competitive tender. As far as my understanding goes, it is a profit making enterprise. I can't believe it would want to screw itself by choosing the worst workers at the highest price, more likely it has chosen the opposite, the best workers at the lowest price. It is not some vehicle for a kind of nationalistic socialism (no other reference intended).
What exactly would the outcome be if British firms were cut off from a wider labour market? In my view, game changing, one of the most spectacular interventions in the free market in years. A wide and flexible European labour market is now the status quo. Am I as a business owner now not allowed to choose contracts and labourers as I see fit? Will the government dictate to me how I run my business? What about my competitors in Europe? They will still have access to the European labour market, even if I don't. How will I compete? Nigel Farage is not just wrong when he talks about removing Britain from EU markets (including the labour market), he's dangerous. Thankfully, the main political parties have held firm, particularly the Lib-Dems.
One last irony. Despite this all being an effort to increase the hiring of British workers, if you wanted a reliable, dependable workforce, would you choose British workers after this? The only people actually working at the affected plants are foreign workers!
A constitutional catastophe? 02:07am on 28 May 2008 Time and time again we hear the same thing, that the EU is an assault of parliamentary democracy. This raises two points:

Firstly, if you really feel that way then vote of a party that will withdraw. If there are no parties that will withdraw, then stand yourself. This is an options to everyone, but somehow no state has ever left the EU (though the territory of Greenland did, which rather shows the system works). In fact, in the UK, supposedly the most anti-EU country in the EU, UKIP (anti-EU) does appallingly at national elections, and at EU elections equally with the Lib-Dems (pro-EU).
Secondly, do all of these anti-EU types fail to see the massive irony in what they're saying? You are angry at parliamentarians for "giving away sovereignty" and ignoring the "true will of the people" and your answer to this is to say we need more powers at parliamentary level!! The supposed abuser must be given more power to abuse in order to protect the abused!!

What this is principally about is people who get their knowledge from one source, say, a tabloid newspaper, and thus assume the whole world thinks as they have been told to, or, people who realise they lack legitimacy, and thus fabricate it by claiming to represent some sort of silent majority.
Well, if there is this silent majority, upset at the malfunctioning of "their" democracy, surely they should wake up and realize they are the source of the malfunction, by failing to vote to protect the democracy they love so much!
All that said, I simply do not believe there are people who are so lividly upset at what they see as the failure of democracy, yet who don't actually vote themselves. If there are people who are genuinely that stupid, then maybe we should all be grateful they don't vote.
Top EU jobs for women 4:38pm on 23 May 2008 Ideas such as the one proposed by Wallstrom do not work because ultimately they fail to deal with the root of the problem. That women are not proportionally represented is not the problem, rather the mentality and culture that has led to such a situation is the problem. Forcing bodies to accept women doesn't change the fact that fundamentally those bodies were not willing to hire a women before. I can't believe that such feelings just disappear once a woman has been parachuted into such an organization. Instead, plans like this one act as window dressing and may actually impede proper recognition of the real issue, which is that decades after the supposed "liberation" of women, despite more or less equal access to education, women are still woefully under represented. Now we add to the mix plans which in and off themselves run counter to the principal of gender equality, by favouring one due to their sex, and not only have we failed to solve the problem we have actually taken a step back.
Supporters of these plans would say that having more women at the top will greatly remedy the position of women entering at the bottom. Sadly, the reverse may well be true. Numerous studies suggest women in power may be less likely to assist women near the bottom. In the UK, women make up the great majority of selection committees that choose party candidates for parliamentary constituencies, but less than 20% of those they choose are women. More masculine selection committees are actually more likely to choose women. Similarly, women hold dramatically stronger feeling of negativity towards female public figures and celebrities than do men. It seems women are a key part in reinforcing inequality, perhaps in a larger part because there is very little social pressure or awareness for women to consider their own approaches to other women. That men will intentionally reinforce typical views of themselves surprises no one; the idea a woman might do the same does.
The real answer to the problem may have more to do with disconnecting our ideas of what a "strong" leader looks like where those ideas are more connected to the "strong" leaders being men, rather than those being objectively good qualities that serve best our society.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

olyus1