Sovereignty and eternal truth
Tory supporters who are wary of Brussels have had lean pickings from the coalition government so far.
Today the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, promised them that the sovereignty of the British Parliament would be placed on the statute book for the first time. He told the Conservative Party conference that the clause on EU Law would underline "this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo".
On one level this changes very little. The existing relationship between British and European law will not be altered. What it will make clear is that EU directives only take effect by the will of Parliament.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is currently rooted in common law. The intention of the new legislation is to put beyond speculation where ultimate sovereignty lies.
In future it will not be possible to argue in a British court that ultimate sovereignty has shifted to the EU. This was the issue that lay behind the "Metric Martyrs" case in 2002, when Steve Thoburn faced a charge for selling bananas by the pound.
Today was intended to reassure Conservatives that the government was not weakening over its previous commitments. In November 2009 David Cameron had promised a Sovereignty Bill. "This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation," he said then. "It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain."
It puts Britain in a similar position to Germany, where the Constitutional Court has ruled that the sovereignty of member states must take precedence and that ultimate authority lies with the bodies established by the German constitution.
For both countries it is a question of drawing a line in the sand and saying to Brussels: "thus far but no further".
William Hague said the government's approach to Europe would be "hard-headed", supporting "determined action, not institutional empire-building".
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"thus far but no further"
How many times have we heard those very words?....
Just before we get sold out a bit more.
Complain about this comment
William Hague is acting like an unreformed Thatcherite - handbag and wig at the ready. His empathy with the real World is very limited indeed and so is his understanding of the awful real plight of the British Economy.
Bill, we desperately need Europe and we desperately need to have the protection of the Euro around us. The language you used is a hostage to fortune and you will regret having said it in quite a short time. You need to be, above all, pragmatic and to operate in the best interests of the Nation - THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE BEING PAID FOR.
You have left yourself in the position of needing to find a way of the UK joining the Euro WITHOUT a referendum as we must do so quite soon. This however is not an impossible thing to do as it can be seen that joining the Euro does not involve surrendering any sovereignty. (You will need to keep a straight face - I suggest a course of botox injections first.)
Perhaps William Hague could look at a way of getting the German Constitutional Court ruling into English Law?
Complain about this comment
Bit late isn't he?
I thought the bus for Brussels left years ago.
I can understand the desire to resist euro-stupidity which usually hasn't got anything to do with Europe but this is all rather last year.
We are going to need Europe in the coming years and should be exploring that prospect rather than revisiting the past.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, a 'Sovereignty' Bill and a 'Referendum' Lock Bill.
It is the content of the eventual Acts that enter the UK Statute Book that will decide on how effective these 2 measures will be in restoring at least a modicum of Democratic Accountability and Political 'Self-Determination' to the UK.
If the wording is so loose as to allow any future Government to wheedle their way out of the concept of rescinding a number of EU Laws that patently do not suit UK/England within the next 5 years or to duck the commitment to hold a Referendum on significant EU-changes/new EU-Treaty then the whole thing will have been a load of typically duplicitous Westminster hot air.
Basically, it's a positive start: However, if the 2 Acts also prove to be the end of the 'recapturing/repatriation' of UK/England 'sovereignty' then it will be much-ado-about-nothing much at all.
Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
Their is no similarity between the German decision and this decision.
This decision has the main purpose of upholding the British social status-quo which would have been questioned by Britons themselves (and heard by EU courts) as the societal and financial pressures increase.
This UkSA direction is only another case of protecting the British elite from EU scrutiny --and nothing else.
--- and little to do with kindergarten independence.
Complain about this comment
Gavin.
"It puts Britain in a similar position to Germany, where the Constitutional Court has ruled that the sovereignty of member states must take precedence and that ultimate authority lies with the bodies established by the German constitution"
Thank heavens. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make in this column for years. It is perfect possible and lawful for individual nation states to put into place constitutional arrangements which do just this. By introducing the proposed legislation, the government will simply doing what their predecessors miserably failed to do. The were far too interested in pulling the teeth of the House of Lords and emasculating the Lord Chancellor's Department to think through what potentially the new Supreme Court could do when it took over the role of the Judicial Committee of the Lords.
Germany does of course have a modern written constitution being a product of the post war era whereas the UK has grown through convention and multiple layers of legislation. Nevertheless, there is little if nothing about the British constitution which is not enshrined somewhere in statute law if you look hard enough. Surely the time has come now to roll this all into one understandable and accessible document by virtue of which everyone would know their rights and all comers be aware that, if they seek to deprive them of their rights, they do so at their peril.
Complain about this comment
For the life of me (and I know I can be quite ignorant about some things), I can't figure out why the UK is so afraid of Brussels. Pardon me for pointing this out but it wasn't Brussels that practically bankrupted the United Kingdom. It was the UK's old pal, the United States of America with its loose financial regulations and gambling investment banks that allowed the UK to be knotted into bundled derivatives while other American investors were likely credit defaulting swaps against your precious sovereignty.
What has Brussels done, except tighten and innovate on financial regulation. Try to implement a tax on all foreign exchange transactiuons, or some kind of a bank levy that will hold the bail-out boys accountable for the harm they have caused?
So today the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, promised that the sovereignty of the British Parliament would be placed on the statute book for the first time. Further Hague pointed out that: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo".
Well, I'm sure this attitude is going to endear the UK to the EU. Whenever you vote on a matter, you can pop up and yell out: "Just kidding! We take it back."
The changes in fact mean very little - just words really. The existing relationship between the UK and the EU will not change. What it will establish is that EU laws and regulations only take effect by the will of Parliament. You'd better hope that your Parliament has elected, or rather, "we the people" have elected representatives that really know what they are doing. I mean they'd best have tough financial credentials and the wisdom of Solomon because those shrewed boys across the ocean can, and will, given half a chance - double dip you into paralyzing recession.
Beware.
In future it will not be possible to argue in a British court that ultimate sovereignty has shifted to the EU. I got news for you: The EU does not want your sovereignty. It's too busy trying to figure out practical solutions for your huge deficit and those af all EU countries - you know, something much better than Cameron's "must all contribute".
November 2009 David Cameron had promised a Sovereignty Bill. "This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation," he said then. "It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain." Where on earth did he think it was?
Complain about this comment
The only people that are currently truely benefiting from us not adopting the euro is the banks. If people could get their heads around this the eurosceptics may find themselves shouted down. Unfortunately it looks like this government is going to take a hardline against europe and yes i'm all for sovereignty but if its simple for the reasons of supporting the banks and playing to patriotism then i'm totally opposed.
Its not just this government and unfortunately. Even labour were starting to lean away from europe under pressure for euro-haters and it looks like the next few decades will see a dramatic decline in european influence on Britain. I could even see us pulling out of some of the EU treaties over the next ten years or so if the Tories stay in dominance.
Complain about this comment
So we have John_from_Hendon, QOT and BluesBerry, arguing that if the UK had been in the Euro the UK would have been secure, further more that "The EU does not want your sovereignty. It's too busy trying to figure out practical solutions for your huge deficit and those all EU countries"
Unbelievable, do you actually think the EU gives a toss about the UK, their only consideration has always been that the UK is a very large net contributor and their only consideration these days is to maximise that. Vis a vis why they want to stop the UK rebate whilst increasing the EU budget.
As for the Euro, it was doomed from day one and that was well known, even the senior accountants of the central bank I worked for during its introduction could not dispute that. Any one with half a brain knew it was not IF but WHEN.
Let's see what the coalition do next as the budget talks are nearing, any surrendering to the Polish budget commissar will say all, i.e. that maybe the UK politicians have perfected that French verb called 'Se rendre'.
Complain about this comment
#8. At 8:52pm on 06 Oct 2010, Fortress Lamex,
Whether within the Euro or not, the smart operators will still manage their Ponzi schemes, the Euro will not protect anybody from that as has been shown in the last year or so.
Complain about this comment
#9 Buzet 23
Moment, moment!
I cannot recall ever saying the UK should join the Euro ---although I have criticized Sterling as being Monopoly currency.
Furthermore I have been against Britain being a member of the ´club´BEFORE it entered. At the time Britain was bankrupt --as it is again today !
My point WAS and still IS -- that Europe does not need the problems Britain brings.
I am 100% in favor of the view that Britain should leave the EU -- the sooner the better -- but I am not prepared to accept the rot that Europe is the problem.
Complain about this comment
What a laugh. Who is he kidding. Britain already signed away its sovereignty in the treaties that were entered into by prior governments. Britain has already accepted that it is bound by those treaties, otherwise why would it have negotiated opt outs? If it wanted to opt out all it would have to do is pass legislation under this theory. And if it were true for the UK that it could just opt out anytime for any reason from any provision, so could the other members which would make the treaty worth less than the paper it's printed on. Anyone could opt out of anything they wanted to, the rules would have no meaning, no force, no effect. I don't think the bluster will get them out of it, they're in for the duration. They either accept the whole package or get out of the EU, there are no halfway escapes.
Complain about this comment
#12 Marcus
I still have hope ?
Complain about this comment
Dumb as a stump;
Why?
Complain about this comment
Much more of this and I might rejoin the Conservative Party. And let them not pussyfoot around. The way that Brussels, that hated overblown place, has stuffed treaties we and the rest patently do not want down our throats and Cameron's (previous?) weakness following Brown's traitorous lies over Lisbon mean all is fare in redressing the balance. A pox on the EU and everything to do with the EU. The sooner the theoretically and unarguably ridiculous and unsound Euro gets its comeuppance the better.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
A shift of sovereignty wasn't actually the issue that lay behind the metric martyrs case. Here's the judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html
You'll see at paragraphs 56-59 that this argument - that the right to determine whether the UK adheres to EU law or not has passed from the UK to Brussels - was something hinted at by Sunderland Council's QC but completely rejected by the judge. Sunderland won on other, more important legal grounds, though. The legal issue really underlying the case was whether Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972 without doing so expressly - quite a different issue. The "shift of sovereignty" point was marginal to the case.
Also, the parallel supporters of a national sovereignty clause make with Germany is misleading. Ultimate authority over our laws already exists here, as it does in Germany. Just as German courts will determine whether the Bundestag can transfer power to the EU according to their fundamental constitutional rule (the German Parliament can only do what their written constitution allows it to), UK courts determine whether Parliament can transfer powers to the EU according to our fundamental constitutional rule (Parliament is sovereign). The situations are already as parallel as they can be, without our actually adopting a written constitution. Indeed, what difference there is is precisely a result of our Parliament being sovereign, while the German one is not. Odd that Eurosceptics should for some reason stand that on its head.
All the German court meant by asserting the ultimate authority of national institutions is exactly what Laws LJ was saying in paragraphs 58 and 59 of Thoburn: that German law, not EU law, determines whether any piece of EU law does or can apply in Germany. It's the same here. EU law only applies here if and to the extent that Parliament says so.
William Hague's idea of a national sovereignty clause is nonsense. He himself admits it changes nothing. Parliament is sovereign, and that's that.
Complain about this comment
It does not go far enough.
I want out!
Complain about this comment
#7 Bluesberry
" For the life of me ( and I know I can be quite ignorant about some things )I can't figure out why the UK is so afraid of Brussels ".
Enough said , especially the part in brackets .
I accept that politics is a lot of hot air if not lies . William Hague's proposal is pretty limp and might not mean anything at all .
For better or WORSE , the British people want to be governed solely from Westminster , with No directives , laws or whatever from Brussels .
British governments are in a difficult position ; in part that they believe that in some form Britain's best interests lie as member of the EU . Governments submit themselves every five years to a general election , from a populace who are to a large extent opposed to membership of the EU in its current form . A return to EEC status might be acceptible , but ever closer union to a single federal State ,
" Europe " is not .
Complain about this comment
#15 Leslie Singleton
Well Said !!!
Complain about this comment
As ever the politicans play with constitutional law.The principle of parlimentary sovereignity was established by the Bill of Rights 1688/9 in England and the Claim of Rights 1688/89 in Scotland.Both statutes.It was this legislation that established parliament as sovereign,rather than the monarch or the courts, or indeed the common law.
Only a codified constitution, which would bring us into line with most other 'liberal ' democracies will stop this political football.
Complain about this comment
Re "On one level this changes very little. The existing relationship between British and European law will not be altered. What it will make clear is that EU directives only take effect by the will of Parliament.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is currently rooted in common law. The intention of the new legislation is to put beyond speculation where ultimate sovereignty lie"
Question to all UK citizens here:
Do any of you actually believe this?
A directive: 'obligation of result' on part of the Member State: EU parliament and Council decide on this new law, which the Member States are OBLIGED to implement after the specified period. Therefore there is no choice anymore between applying the directive or not, there is only the choice of means to achieve the results the directive prescribes.
Q: What happens when a directive is not implemented by the Member States after the specified period has elapsed?
A: The citizen which would benefit from the non-implemented directive in his relation with his government (national regional or even local) can demand that the national judge applies the directive directly (without needing a national law implementing this directive) if the wording of that directive is sufficiently clear.
Q: What happens if the directive is not sufficiently clear in its wording?
A: The citizen can sue his national government before the national courts to receive damages from his government.
N.B. These procedures, regardless of the possibilities of taking the UK itself before the Court in Luxemburg.
So these rethorics on sovereignty are quite hollow and meaningless. Again it creates expectations on behalve of UK citizens which can not be realized by their national government, which again will result in dissapointed and angry citizens. This whole idea of 'sovereignty remains at the national level' is a façade. Mr Hague should have the intellectual honesty and courtesy to tell this truth plainly to his citizens.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt.
"The existing relationship between British and European law will not be altered. What it will make clear is that EU directives only take effect by the will of Parliament."
so, Mr Hague will place the customary British pick-and-mix approach to pan-European co-operation on "the statute book" -- good for the UK, bad for international relations.
plus ça change..
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 Re #9
Agree with almost every point: Obviously there are also problems of entirely British origins & making - - a part of the solutions for the UK & for the EU is for England at least to withdraw from the supra-National entity asap.
BluesBerry suffers from Political-Economic-Fiscal myopia if he actually sees the EU as a benign or positive influence in any of those 3 areas. If was as he describes then the EU wouldn't exist!
QOT Re #11
This one time I will grant You were making a partially justified comment!
Agree, You always seemed anti-UK involvement in the EU.
Do not agree any of us (anti-EU) blame the EU entirely for everything wrong within the UK at a Political-Economic-Fiscal-Judicial-Social level.
However, the EU-Brussels entity does claim the 'Right' to have Legislation pertaining to each of those areas of UK/England life (as it does for all 27) & therefore it can only be expected the EU must take its share of the 'Responsibility'.
Something the EU never accepts: 1) E.g. Brussels proclaims circa 1992-2008 the Economic progress of EUrope is down to ramifications of 'ever closer union' etc.; the moment the Economic Crisis hit 2009-10 suddenly nothing of the Economic catastrophe had anything to do with the EU!
2) E.g. Brussels declares the Lisbon Treaty is not a Constitution by-the-back-door, but negotiates & concedes 3 Protocols to the Irish Constitition to have it passed thus demonstrably it is an EU 'Constitution'!
That sort of political deceit by the EU-Brussels fraternity of Political leadership & apparatchiks is just pure, simple, duplicitous nonsense & anti-Democratic!
I also must admit Your suggested 'solution' (UK/England to quit EU) is my own: So, just WHY do You keep contributing such obtusely farcical links (e.g. aristocracy & land ownership! It's fanciful dross) & observations (e.g. most recent "Social commentator.. Sir Norman Wisdom.." - - You obviously have no idea who he was & You make Yourself a laughing stock)?
They bear little or no relavance to the UK - EU debate on these Blogs?
Complain about this comment
The theory that Britain is still entirely sovereign is absurd. If that were true, the EU Court would have no power. Complying with its rulings including paying fines would be strictly voluntary because the UK government could simply opt out of them. Why would the UK voluntarily pay fines to the EU when it needs every pound it can get? No, the UK made a deal with the devil and now it has to pay the piper. Perhaps what's needed is a first class lawyer to get out of it, a lawyer like Daniel Webster. The short story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" is instructive. And while Britain is at hiring an American lawyer to plead its case, it might just learn the American language. I know it's trying to. Now if you could just do something about those awful painful to the ear accents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_and_Daniel_Webster
Complain about this comment
MAscaridII
Re #24
A clever contribution MAII: Well done.
According to the Daniel Webster story:
'It is said the devil never came back to New Hampshire..'.
Of course that is where it all falls apart: George Dubya Bush visited NH a few times and we all now who was at his shoulder, 'whispering in his ear'!
Mind You, the devil was busy, busy, busy because Blair & Brown (no UK Referendum on Lisbon Treaty!) & Barroso (43% Voter Turnout EU Elections 2009 an "endorsement" of Brussels!) seem to have had a number of visits too!
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re #21 & "...these rhetorics on 'sovereignty' are quite hollow and meaningless.."
A couple of questions for You:
1) If there is a new Treaty (other than an 'accession' one) for the EU some time in this decade what do You suppose will occur in Brussels before a Referendum is held in the UK seeking Citizen consent for it?
2) Assuming a Majority (&, as ever, I don't say it is a certainty) of UK Citizens voted against the new Treaty what do You suppose Brussels would do about that?
It is my belief the 'Sovereignty' of all 27 member States is the 'democratic' achilles heel of EU-Brussels: Afterall, if Brussels attempts pre-Referendum to have it halted the tyranny will be revealed and if it attempts post-Referendum's negative result to have it over-turned the tyranny will be revealed.
You should have the intellectual honesty & courtesy to accept this tyrannical truth plainly on this Blog.
Complain about this comment
#24
Surely, you prefer the version: The Devil and Homer Simpson?
Marge's attempts to get Homer free of the Devil were a lot more believable than the cornball that the Webster character comes out with.
Complain about this comment
EU sovereignity? UK parliament sovereignity? why not simply seeking people's support through a referendum?
Bizzarely in countries where a referendum turned down an EU proposal (eg: France in 2005) there has been non more referendums!!! so good for parliaments sovereignity but certainely not representativity!
Complain about this comment
@COOL
Re "A couple of questions for You:
1) If there is a new Treaty (other than an 'accession' one) for the EU some time in this decade what do You suppose will occur in Brussels before a Referendum is held in the UK seeking Citizen consent for it?
2) Assuming a Majority (&, as ever, I don't say it is a certainty) of UK Citizens voted against the new Treaty what do You suppose Brussels would do about that?
It is my belief the 'Sovereignty' of all 27 member States is the 'democratic' achilles heel of EU-Brussels: Afterall, if Brussels attempts pre-Referendum to have it halted the tyranny will be revealed and if it attempts post-Referendum's negative result to have it over-turned the tyranny will be revealed.
You should have the intellectual honesty & courtesy to accept this tyrannical truth plainly on this Blog."
Let's differentiate between the legal reality and political reality.
1. Legally: No problem at all from a European (!) perspective. The TEU itself stipulates that ratifications at the national level should be done according to each Member State's own constitutional procedures.
I don't know UK law that well, but I can imagine this could be a problem in UK constitutional law, as in UK law only parliament holds ultimate sovereignty (afaik?) and not the people? But again, this would not be any problem from an EU perspective as this is a national matter. (and you can include accession treaties in my response)
1. Politically. 'Brussels' would not like this and would probably put pressure on the UK government to have such a treaty ratified through parliament instead of referendum.
2. Legally. Nothing. Because there isn't anything it could do. And ofcourse this treaty would be a treaty between member states themselves, not between the EU and the member states. Therefore this is something the member states would have to solve between themselves.
2. Politically. They would do the same thing as they did with Ireland and Denmark. (Note on 'they', this is not simply the Commission, but in fact the other member states in the first place, through the European Council)
As a corollary to your questions: the UK would always have the possibility (legally and politcally) to leave the EU, which I think it should do if it obstructs the integration process permanently. Which would be the case if the new treaty could not enter into force because of only the UK's non-ratifcation supposing the other member states would have ratified the new treaty.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #29
Thanks for a reply uncluttered by reference to pointless bits of paper not a single EU Member State abides by when National interest is at stake.
A belief about modern Governments I mention as par for the course as You read on:
I broadly agree with Your scenarios, except I foresee a far harsher reality as a result of these 2 new Statutes being revealed as damp squibs to the British public.
So, why do Cameron-Clegg put themselves at risk of a Citizen backlash? It is simple political power-play: It is much as You commented, '.. meaningless... hollow..' rhetoric that has become the everyday practise of so many UK Politicians they are almost entirely unaware of the breech of confidence that has opened up between Westminster and the Citizen.
One has only to look back at the 'Expenses' fiasco to see the gap: Whilst Britons were being told in no uncertain terms by their MPs there were grim times ahead well over half those same MPs were blandly, blindly completing forms claiming Monies for which they were not entitled. In no other Occupation could that have resulted in anything except at least Redundancy and for most a Fine or Imprisonment!
The pigmy ignoramus at Westminster stood in line to declare they didn't know what they had been doing! Now, is that an admission of Incompetence or of Indifference?
I would claim it is both and in very CONTEMPTUOUS MEASURE: The ruling elite of the UK couldn't give a stuff about the average Citizen and Cameron-Hague-Clegg imagine they can just go on ad infinitum with their con-trick!
I think, though You would be reluctant to admit it, Your reply also implied if the UK Citizenry (especially the English who would not be bound by the collective 'votes' of the other 3 Union nationalities) took it into their head to reject by Referendum a substantial EU Treaty then other members might well follow.
The EU's overall record hardly inspires confidence in quite a number of Nations - - at the very least it is heading towards '2-speed' & may end up at '3-speed' ever closer union.
Hence the most likely scenario is Brussels putting enormous pressure via core States on the UK Government to find a way to evade ('wheedle' out of) the 'Referendum Lock'.
Given the unalloyed avaricious & overweaningly ambitious Political Class of the 21st Century UK almost certainly Cameron-Clegg, or whomever is their successors will chase after Brussels and the British Citizens will yet again be denied their Democratic Right & Responsibility via a Referendum.
Should that point be reached: No 'ands', no 'ifs', no 'maybes' there will be civil strife because the British are being irrevocably pushed into that position by the duplicitous Leadership of the UK & the EU.
That is most certainly not a scenario I relish at all: It is not too late for Westminster & Brussels to come to their senses and make it known irrespective of the result both will allow Democracy to take its full course in the UK with the result of the Referendum allowed to stand.
Complain about this comment
GH: "The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is currently rooted in common law. The intention of the new legislation is to put beyond speculation where ultimate sovereignty lies."
Gavin, I hear European Parliament wants to pass a pan-European law which would force public hospitals in EU member states to perform abortions on demand.
If such a law is indeed passed I wonder what a reaction of such countries as Ireland and Poland would be.
Complain about this comment
#14 Marcus
--I mean with you !
Huaimek has suggested I am of the female gender.
Kisses.
Complain about this comment
#9. Buzet23 wrote:
Please do not missrepresnet my posting. I did not say we should surrender anything. Neither did I say that the EU cared overly about the UK.
But what I did say is that in the coming times of bad economic dislocation and disruption we need to have access to as large as home market as possible. So we need to join the Euro zone to protect the 70% of our present 'foreign' trade from severe damage.
Complain about this comment
The thing is, this debate between whether one form of choreographed representation (national parliaments staffed by those chosen by party executives) is somehow better than another form of exactly the same thing (EU institutions staffed by folks chosen by EXACTLY the same party executives), is likely to leave everyone's dignity in tatters.
I mean, on what basis is rule by the EU any different than rule by national governments in the UK? Either way, the people claiming to represent the voting public are selected by the party executives from parties so entrenched in their entitlement to power than they make the average medieval monarchy look like a temporary fad.
Seriously, the UK tory party has been around since 1678. The Labour party has been around as an organized executive sponsoring representatives since Thomas Steele convened his merry band of gents in 1899.
For all that time, the executive board who organized the funding and nomination of the "representatives" who would obtain safe seats in elections had a virtual guarantee of power. Of sovereignty.
That is a long time to hold power, nuh? It is longer than your average ming dynasty, and far, far longer than the average reign of royal houses in the middle ages. Compared to Roman emperors, the power of the party executive is nearly eternal.
And so why the concern at the "upheaval" of power being transferred from the UK party executives in Britain to EXACTLY THE SAME FOLKS operating out of brussels?
Let us not mince words: these are exactly the same people doing exactly the same thing. The executive of the parties sponsor candidates who are ensured of the right to tax the population and spend the money they tax as they see fit. That is what sovereignty means. It means the keys to the public money box. It means the license to send folks with guns around the general population, forcing folks to stand and deliver as you direct.
Now I could understand if these party executive members who were sponsoring folks in the Eu institutions were not in power in the UK. OK, sure. In that case, the EU could be seen as some kind of coup for power by those folks.
But come on! These folks already have the keys to the public money box, and they've had it for literally hundreds of years!!!! Who really cares if they operate their game from London or Brussels? Nothing is going to change.
They key here is that "parliamentary" sovereignty is being disputed, and not the sovereignty of the people. The people are never sovereign unless they vote upon the laws under which they live. Voting for representatives who are chosen by a party executive board to have safe seats, and when voting is sure to give the few dominant parties power, is NOT the sovereignty of the people. It is, as has correctly been stated by the law, the sovereignty of Parliament. And who owns parliament?
The PEOPLE?
You are having a laugh.
Yer 'avin a laf, guv.
This debate about in or out of the EU is about as meaningful to ordinary folks as a debate about where the Queen chooses to lay her head of an evening. In this palace, or that palace?
The sovereignty of the UK will not change, only the seat of that sovereign may change. Rest assured, exactly the same people who select the folks who will win the safe seats and therefore constitute your sovereign parliament will be exactly the same folks who choose the Brussels based Eurocrats who rule over you in the happy event of a more powerful EU. At least then you may be spared the indignity of a meaningless vote for folks who have been preselected.
Seriously, is there anyone here young or feebleminded enough to not understand that when politicians are selected by their party executive to contest safe seats, they are ENSURED "power"? So, who has the power in that scenario? The person doing the selecting, or the person being selected?
Anyone who doesn't understand the preselection procedure for major parties in the representative model just does not understand who really owns the system of Parliament, and who is truly being represented by that parliament.
I shall never understand how folks can laugh at the soviet system of representation, with its elections, and yet take seriously the westminster model of exactly the same system of choreographed representation by vested interest.
It is like laughing at the pope for being a supposedly "divinely blessed leader" and then revering the queen for her entitlement to be head of state.
Now wouldn't THAT be absurd?
Complain about this comment
Re #34
A basic argument for leaving 'politics' to the elite: The superiority of attitude & contempt for the average Citizen dripping from each line.
A view the political decision-making might well have been left to King Charles I, 1629, after he dissolution of Parliament on the grounds nothing in the way of Democracy has come on the scene since then and no form of Democracy is available to Citizens of the UK in 2010.
The Swiss sage attempts to paint a picture of 'democracy' per se in the UK & across EUrope as worthless to the average Citizen: On the surface it is not a picture easily dismissed.
However, once one considers the alternatives around the present World, or those of past Centuries then it becomes fairly clear whilst most certainly nothing is perfect in the 21st Century political face-off between Establishment & Citizen the ways & means of change are inherent in the system.
What is needed is the Free-will to take steps to make changes where they are needed: For several decades in the UK there has been relative Citizen-level inertia concerning the growth of the EU's authority over the 'sovereignty' of the UK Parliament. Curiously in that same period 3 of the 4 Union Nations' Citizens did vote for significant political change - - change that demonstrates Westminster can & does respond in its role of Representing the Political voices of Constituents - - at least, Parliament will if there are sufficient numbers insisting on change.
Perhaps the 'Devolution Debate' left English Citizens disinterested & no doubt many viewed the gerrymandering corruption of post-Maastricht Brussels in the same way: Parliament enjoyed 2 decades of sessions where it could say one thing to the English Electorate & another in Brussels. All that may be about to change: There is no guarantee because for sure Cameron-Hague-Clegg will want to leave themselves an ironic 'Opt-out' Clause in the Sovereignty & the Referendum Lock Acts, in order to suit their avaricious, conniving purposes at some future date.
That said, Westminster Statutes have a way of creating a Political life-form all of their own which is one clear advantage of the Unwritten Constitution. There is nothing to prevent a group of Back-bench MPs or disgruntled ex-Cabinet Ministers after one of the shuffles banding together and creating havoc by just objecting to one Paragraph of a piece of future EU Legislation - - their line gets picked up by the media & those 'anti-EU' instincts of the English public awake - - and suddenly, the game is on!
Sage of the Swiss wrapped it all up by the typical inconsistency of his #34 content: Only a few months ago DemocThreat was one of those poking fun at the USSR system of Government (I can't give the quotes cos BBC Mods don't like me reminding this sage of the Swiss what a crock of absurdities he writes). Now apparently the Kremlin's All Soviet Congress is to be compared favourably to the British Westminster 'democratic' system!
Such is his antipathy to Britain the chap flounders even as he tries to make relatively valid points.
Vivat Regina! Hmm, catchy... especially as a rallying cry for opposition in a Referendum to any new EU Treaty!
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work #35.
"What is needed is the Free-will to take steps to make changes where they are needed ... Westminster Statutes have a way of creating a Political life-form all of their own which is one clear advantage of the Unwritten Constitution. There is nothing to prevent a group of Back-bench MPs or disgruntled ex-Cabinet Ministers.."
oh please, just how real (or relevant) do you think any of this really is in the face of 'extraordinary renditions', aided and abetted by HM Gov't?
Complain about this comment
CBW
You are jumping around like ´a cat on a hot tin roof´, while in the air checking wind direction for landing.
--- Marcus is more consistent.
The mess Britain is in will NOT be solved by choosing more of the same-- the direction of the dinosaurs or the Empire -- Both are extinct. Is that so difficult for a Brit to understand?
Complain about this comment
Some really funny and bizarre comments here, but this one really takes the biscuit:
@ 18. At 04:13am on 07 Oct 2010, Huaimek wrote:
"A return to EEC status might be acceptible , but ever closer union to a single federal State ,
" Europe " is not ."
Apart from the contribution to the Oxford Dictionary, someone should tell this Europhobe that a "return to EEC status", while no doubt *acceptible*, is outright impossible for the simple reason that one cannot return to where one already is.
The UK is the sole honorary member of the EEC of the 1980s as this entity was essentially transformed by two treaties in the 1990s which among a lot of bureaucratic huff and puff made just two fundamental changes:
1. The creation of economic and monetary union, i.e. the single currency
2. The creation of a Europe without borders, i.e. a border union.
Because of these two 'unions' the EEC changed its name to the European Union and would have been declared extinct, were it not for the fact that one country remains in it to this day: The UK may be nominally a member of the EU but the facto it is not, as it is not a member of any of the two unions mentioned above, for two reasons:
1. The widespread prevalence of a severe and malignant condition known as OCBCD (Obsessive Compulsive Border Control Disorder)
2. The widespread prevalence of an even more severe and deadly condition known as NCSS (Nineteen Century Sovereignty Syndrome)
Experts have been busy trying to find a cure for these conditions but so far without any shred of success. They are currently working on a very promising line of investigation: The likelihood of suffering from both these seemingly unrelated conditions BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS AT THE SAME TIME is extremely high.
*****
Among all the bizarre comments one moment of truth:
8. At 8:52pm on 06 Oct 2010, Fortress Lamex wrote:
The only people that are currently truely benefiting from us not adopting the euro is the banks.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 #38.
"2. The widespread prevalence of an even more severe and deadly condition known as NCSS (Nineteen Century Sovereignty Syndrome)"
this is so true, and as a consequence the largest denomination, to this day, is a £50 note (and you'll get eyed with suspicion if you try to use one!!).
Complain about this comment
I've always said European governments are not democracies, not when you get down to it. In a democracy the people tell the government what to do. In a dictatorship the government tells the people what to do. In a month, the American people will likely tell their government "we are not amused." The worst thing to be if you are an American politician right now is an incumbent. We have a perpetual "throw the bums out" attitude when they don't do their job to our satisfaction. Could anyone imagine the American government signing away the nation's sovereignty and the people letting them get away with it? It's a wonder we haven't demanded that we get out of the UN already. What do you think the message was when we told the leaders in both parties and their members in Congress few years ago that they'd better not pass the Kennedy McCain immigration bill? Despite strong support from the leaders of both parties, the bill was smashed because the people warned the Senators and Representatives what would happen a the next election if it passed. Don't write the Tea Party off. They are sending a powerful message to the Republican party leaders right now and soon to the rest of the government too. Where's are Europe's Tea Parties? Mewling in the street on one day strikes every now and then? And what does that do?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #40.
"Could anyone imagine the American government signing away the nation's sovereignty and the people letting them get away with it?"
that's comparing apples and oranges though, a better comparison might be the recent kerfuffle re Arizona's immigration law -- where's their sovereignty?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/28/arizona-us-immigration-law-protest
Complain about this comment
What will happen remains to be seen. There are both judicial and political ramifications to all this. It will likely be decided judicially by the supreme court interpreting our Constitution. The politics of it will be decided at the polls. Right now the Democrats who seem to want to block Arizona's efforts at stopping illegal immigration which the Federal government hasn't up to now are not doing so well in the polls. President Obama has responded by sending more troops to guard the border. The Obama administration claims a record number of deportations of illegal immigrants for any comparable period.
Complain about this comment
#33 John-of-Hendon
Britains trade within the Eurozone is about 40 - 50% , generally at a deficit . Britains profitable trading is 50 - 60% with the rest of the world . Even if Britain were in the Eurozone ( Heaven Forbid ) I do not see that there would be any advantage .
British governments take great liberties in committing Britain to the EU . To adopt the Euro in place of Sterling , might very well cause a national riot and probably bring down the government .
Every informed opinion today recognizes that the Euro was ill conceived , that it is only a matter of time before it collapses .
Complain about this comment
#38 Jorge1
I am not alone in being a British Europhobe , in fact we may be the majority of the British population . Many British people think that successive British governments have signed treaties that are not supported by the will of the people , Maastricht for one .
You are rubbishing my comment , as I now do this one of yours , you are splitting hairs .
Smart you may think yourself , but the EEC is not the same as the EU , even if the latter is an evolution from the EEC .
Whatever name you think appropriate , the EEC was a looser trading relationship between sovereign nation states . The EU is an attempt to bond the member states into one .
I believe that the majority of British people do not want to be part of an Ever Closer Union or a single federal state . In my opinion the EU is teetering on the brink of failure , despite the undying faith of its believers and will never succeed in creating the dreamed of European Nation State .
Complain about this comment
Eurozone countries should bring back their national currencies with the Euro retained but converted to and maintained as a parallel strong currency--does anyone remember the Hard Ecu proposals, which if nothing else were at least theoretically sound?
Complain about this comment
Dutch Queen Beatrix has asked the leader of the Liberal VVD party to form a cabinet backed by the party of anti-Islamist populist Geert Wilders.
Mark Rutte will now head a centre-right coalition with the Christian Democrats (CDA).
The minority cabinet will have support of Mr Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV
The government says it plans to ban the full Islamic veil in the Netherlands.
It also wants to cut the budget by 18bn euros by 2015, imposes curbs on immigration and increase the number of police officers.(BBC)
So much for some earlier comments here that the Dutch could create a government without Wilders' and PVV's support.
Complain about this comment
Since some al-Qaida and Taliban aficionados rant and rave here ad nauseam against 'extraordinary renditions' I think it's about time to replace them with ordinary, routine renditions.
Complain about this comment
Re #37
Oh dear, much trivia in place of logic, "..dinosaurs.. empire..": Usual 'pro-EU' stereotypical labelling of those expressing an alternative view.
Only one rejoinder possible: 'No ideas & nothing to see here, move along!
Complain about this comment
Re #45
Been to Germany recently. Germans dream of nothing else but dumping euro and returning to their beloved DM.
Whether they'll succeed is another story.
Complain about this comment
jr4412
Re #36
"...extraordinary renditions.."
Erm, if there was some correlation between the allegedly illegal transfer of suspected 'Fundamentalist Terrorists' and the UK political relationship with the EU I would attempt an answer.
As I don't see one that is "..relevant" to the debate on this blog I shan't venture into that 'intelligence' (or otherwise) episode.
Complain about this comment
jorgeG1
Re #38
You had been away some time & I hoped You were picking up some useful tips on how to argue/debate with those of us who are 'anti-EU' without Your constant resorting to eras of British history practically no one alive has ever witnessed.
Alas, it is the same tired, illogical labelling ("..nineteenth century syndrome..", Oh, how very droll! I'm sure 'pro-EU' are creasing theirselves with Your inventiveness!).
Meanwhile back on planet 2010 in the United Kingdom & especially in England it would appear there is a Coalition Government of EU-sceptic Conservative and EU-phile Liberal Democrats at the Westminster Parliament considering 2 pieces of Legislation that will return, albeit only problematically, some 'Sovereignty' to that Democratically Elected Nationally recognised Political authority.
I note, and typically of Your contributions, Your inability to make any sort of case for why those 2 Bills should not be placed on the Statute book.
By the way: Just out of nosiness, are You still residing in that wretched England You have lambasted on every topic with every comment for 2 years, or, have You found gainful employment in 25% unemployed Spain?
Complain about this comment
"have You found gainful employment in 25% unemployed Spain?"
That, CBW, depends on the posters' age.
Unemployment in Spain in the 18-27 age bracket is over 40%.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat
Re #52
Yes, despite all the provocation of #38, I admit I was trying to be kind to our poor Iberian fellow.
It's that damn English 'fair-play' syndrome, dontcha know, old boy!
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
#40
Don't write the Tea Party off. They are sending a powerful message to the Republican party leaders right now and soon to the rest of the government too. Where's are Europe's Tea Parties?
If and until they can eradicate the openly racist and homophobic elements that associate themselves with this movement, then Europe should stay well clear of anything remotely resembling it. In fact, if some of the things that have been reported occurring at Tea Party rallies are true, then I'd be utterly ashamed and disgusted to have a European version. I thought you said that racism and intolerance were consigned to the past in America? I think you may have been playing to the crowd.
In the UK and Europe we have multi-party politics, not what amounts to a two-party closed shop.We dont need a Tea Party when you can create an actual political party. UKIP, whose manifesto advocates UK withdrawal from the EU, was only formed in 1993, yet secured a million votes in the 2010 General election, and has 12 MEPs. A change in the voting system to PR, will no doubt see UKIP MP's in Parliament. George Galloways "Respect" party has something like 15 local councillors in London and Birmingham, a party only formed out of opposition to the Iraq War. Caroline Lucas' Green Party secured their first MP in 2010, on the back of 2 MEPs. So, you see, we dont need Tea Parties.
Complain about this comment
39. At 10:37pm on 07 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
JorgeG1 #38.
"2. The widespread prevalence of an even more severe and deadly condition known as NCSS (Nineteen Century Sovereignty Syndrome)"
this is so true, and as a consequence the largest denomination, to this day, is a £50 note (and you'll get eyed with suspicion if you try to use one!!).
I dont understand the connection between what George said and the use of the £50 note. Please explain.
Complain about this comment
#33. At 5:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
#9. Buzet23 wrote:
"Please do not missrepresnet my posting. I did not say we should surrender anything. Neither did I say that the EU cared overly about the UK.
But what I did say is that in the coming times of bad economic dislocation and disruption we need to have access to as large as home market as possible. So we need to join the Euro zone to protect the 70% of our present 'foreign' trade from severe damage."
Firstly, the mainland is not the UK's home market, the UK is the home territory, just as France is France's home territory, Germany is Germany's and so on. The illusion that is the EU does not mean that instantly the EU has become all our home markets, internal protectionism is rife.
Secondly, joining the Euro will never protect the UK's markets, there is nothing too prohibitive about currency transactions, I've worked as an IT consultant in accounting software for many companies and the running of multiple currency books is easily mastered. Any half decent treasury accountant will know the tricks of the job and how to diminish currency fluctuations. On top of that those who advocate joining the Euro continually forget that all currencies have only two mechanisms for regulating an economy, taxation and Interest rates. By joining the Euro you give away the interest rate mechanism to the ECB, based in Germany and run by a Frenchman.
Why do you think the Euro struggler's are finding it so difficult to regulate their economies, they can't change their interest rates or devalue their currency, and they're already highly taxed. With Sterling, Osbourne has the full range of mechanisms available, whether he and the treasury are clever enough to use them correctly is a different matter.
Complain about this comment
nonsense offramp;
There are a small percentage of Democrats who are communists and socialists. That does not make the Democratic party a communist or socialist party. The overwhelming majority of its members are died in the wool capitalists. There are some racists and homophobes among the Tea Party members. But that has nothing to to with its message or the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of its members. To say otherwise as you do is typical irrational Euronic rhetoric and misthinking to obfuscate the real issues Eurons don't like or won't accept. Besides, the last ones in the world who should bring up the subject of racism to anyone else are Eurons. In Europia there are parties whose only program is one of ethnic and racial hatred and violence.
H;
One advantage of the UK joining the Euro, maybe the only advantage is that when Brits visit Euroland they will know what things cost in terms familiar to them without having to know how to multiply or divide, or even how to use a hand held calculator. Perhaps that explains why so many Brits want the Euro as their currency.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Thanks for a reply uncluttered by reference to pointless bits of paper not a single EU Member State abides by when National interest is at stake."
Obviously I must disagree, as the past has shown that member states did accept the supremacy of EU law even when their 'national' interests were at stake. This perhaps because 'the national' interest rarely exist. Within the Member States there is a society with different actors which have different interests and different influence over their government. Furthermore 'the national' interest in a specific case in a short time perspective might not give the same result as 'the national' interest in general in the long term.
Re "I think, though You would be reluctant to admit it, Your reply also implied if the UK Citizenry (especially the English who would not be bound by the collective 'votes' of the other 3 Union nationalities) took it into their head to reject by Referendum a substantial EU Treaty then other members might well follow.
The EU's overall record hardly inspires confidence in quite a number of Nations - - at the very least it is heading towards '2-speed' & may end up at '3-speed' ever closer union."
Not reluctant because I don't quite believe it. Suppose we have this new treaty which just still needs to be ratified by the MS. This means that between the executive branches of the governments of the MS there is already a consensus on the text of the Treaty, meaning other MS governments (not citizens) would have no interest in not going through with it. Unless of course the UK would receive some extra benefits to convince her to ratify still that treaty, which would give an incentive to other member states to be as reluctant as the UK during negociations.
Re "I broadly agree with Your scenarios, except I foresee a far harsher reality as a result of these 2 new Statutes being revealed as damp squibs to the British public.
So, why do Cameron-Clegg put themselves at risk of a Citizen backlash? It is simple political power-play: It is much as You commented, '.. meaningless... hollow..' rhetoric that has become the everyday practise of so many UK Politicians they are almost entirely unaware of the breech of confidence that has opened up between Westminster and the Citizen.
One has only to look back at the 'Expenses' fiasco to see the gap: Whilst Britons were being told in no uncertain terms by their MPs there were grim times ahead well over half those same MPs were blandly, blindly completing forms claiming Monies for which they were not entitled. In no other Occupation could that have resulted in anything except at least Redundancy and for most a Fine or Imprisonment!
The pigmy ignoramus at Westminster stood in line to declare they didn't know what they had been doing! Now, is that an admission of Incompetence or of Indifference?
I would claim it is both and in very CONTEMPTUOUS MEASURE: The ruling elite of the UK couldn't give a stuff about the average Citizen and Cameron-Hague-Clegg imagine they can just go on ad infinitum with their con-trick!
Hence the most likely scenario is Brussels putting enormous pressure via core States on the UK Government to find a way to evade ('wheedle' out of) the 'Referendum Lock'.
Given the unalloyed avaricious & overweaningly ambitious Political Class of the 21st Century UK almost certainly Cameron-Clegg, or whomever is their successors will chase after Brussels and the British Citizens will yet again be denied their Democratic Right & Responsibility via a Referendum.
Should that point be reached: No 'ands', no 'ifs', no 'maybes' there will be civil strife because the British are being irrevocably pushed into that position by the duplicitous Leadership of the UK & the EU.
That is most certainly not a scenario I relish at all: It is not too late for Westminster & Brussels to come to their senses and make it known irrespective of the result both will allow Democracy to take its full course in the UK with the result of the Referendum allowed to stand."
So basically you are very sceptical of Cameron (and before him Brown) = sceptical of the UK elite who have given up UK sovereignty to Brussels and keep doing so. You seem to imply you cannot trust your national political elite.
But the dealings of the UK citizens with the EU are mainly done through this political elite, so why are such an ardent critic of the EU, when in fact you only have to blame your own government for the fact that the EU has 'taken away' sovereignty from the UK (citizens)?
Another question: Supposing you want to regaint UK sovereignty by leaving the EU, you do know that you would lay all that sovereignty (just the de iure sov. of course, because de facto it is impossible to be sovereign in this globalised world) back in the hands of that very same elite that (supposedly) betrayed the UK citizen all that time when the UK was part of the EU. How would this than be better than the current situation, you would be ruled by untrustworthy british politicans and bureaucrats instead of untrustworthy european politicians and bureaucrats? Not much progress there it seems
Complain about this comment
#57
"One advantage of the UK joining the Euro, maybe the only advantage is that when Brits visit Euroland they will know what things cost in terms familiar to them without having to know how to multiply or divide, or even how to use a hand held calculator"
Indeed, although I tend to work on 1:1 anyway, as it might as well be. If your predictions from a few months ago would have come true, Americans going to Europe would have found it easier to calculate too, as the two currencies would have reached parity. Doesnt seem to have worked out that way though. Mind you , I suppose working out 3/4 of something should be easy enough.
Complain about this comment
In one thread we have a discussion about "Death of Tory Euroscepticism?" and on the next an assertion by a leading Tory that Britain is and will remain independent of the EU to whatever degree it chooses. Why do I sense a disconnect here? Is this another example of Euronic thinking? There always seems to be a state of hysterical schizophrenia about Europe. In one breath they tell us that Europe is one united and unified society and in the next they are ranting about Turkey, Islam, hijzbs, Roma, Romanians in Norther Ireland, Hungarians in Slovakia. In one breath they tell you burning fossil fuel is making human life on earth impossible due to CO2 emissions and in the next they are frantic about where they will get an adequate supply of it for themselves when Russia starts diverting its production to sell it to China. The only conclusion I can come to is that Europe is nothing more than a region on a map. There simply is no such thing as Europe as a political, social, cultural entity as for example the United States or China exists. About all they have in common is their irrational Euronic thinking, mutual hatreds, mistrusts, suspicions, and a desire to rule the world again. Meanwhile the most deluded of the bunch are trying to erect yet one more pan European empire despite the fact that every last one of the countless number that went before failed usually in disaster and tragedy and every one of them thought this time it will be different. Nothing about Europe ever seems to change. Their past is their future. Reason enough for anyone who is sane to get a safe distance from it before the next explosion.
Complain about this comment
nonsense offramp;
" I suppose working out 3/4 of something should be easy enough."
Wherever I went whether in Europe or the Caribbean, I had no problem converting back and forth between the local currency and US dollars. I learned how to multiply and divide when I was six years old and have been doing it ever since. BTW, how much is that in real money?
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re #58
No implication of not 'trusting' the UK 'Political elite'.
I don't for one moment of any day trust any of the Westminster bunch.
Just look at Ed Milliband, the new Labour Party leader: 6 months ago this Cabinet Minister was in public firmly backing UK Foreign & Defence policies on Iraq & Afghanistan and last week described one as "..wrong.. a mistake.." and the other as "..not in our longterm interest.." - - duplicity & double-talk.
His brother David is no better: He stayed in his Cabinet post despite now claiming he disagreed with PM Brown on many policies & wanting Brown out of office.
PM Cameron & Foreign Secretary Hague both backed-out of their declaration of holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: It does not matter a jot that it had been Ratified before those 2 were in power - - they gave their word to the UK Citizens - - the Referendum would at least have given the UK Citizens some sort of chance to voice their views even if Lisbon remained in-place.
Clegg is leader of the Liberal Democrats who 6 months ago as Mr Hewitt reminds us was witheringly, critically stating Cameron had signed up with the EU's extreme Right-wing: Clegg is now in Government with that Party!
Why would any English Citizen place their trust in that lot?
Add to that: For 20+ years whomever has been in No.10 they have wilfully lied & misled the English at every turn on the EUropean Union.
None of that disenchantment alters mine and any UK Citizens' right to express their views: As I have often remarked on here when disputing the alleged 'Democracy' of the EU, it is not a lot different from that prevailing in the UK, and therefore I see no reason to place my trust in Brussels anymore than I do in London.
So, yes, I do know the risks entailed in regaining/reallocating 'sovereignty' to the Westminster 'political elite': However, it is my belief the UK and especially English Citizens have a much better chance of attaining a 21st Century Bill of Rights once No.10 & Westminster's occupants are no longer able to conveniently blame the EU and England's Citizens can focus firmly on England's issues.
As Edmund Carpenter wrote in 1918, 'Two Cheers for Democracy!'
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Judging by recent polls, both the French and the Germans think they'd be better of without millions of Gastarbeteirs they brought in decades ago from the Middle East and North Africa.
Believing they'd get dirt cheap labour for nothing in return.
Complain about this comment
MAscaridII, Powermeerkat
Re #61
Seriously, the U.S. 'brains' department would seem validated by the BBC UK News page: Check out the story & graphic about Nobel Prize Winners.
Unsurprisingly the UK figures prominently, too.
The Trans-Atlantic Alliance: Where would the World be without us!?
Complain about this comment
CBW
The Britons (more specifically the English) have a long and a noble tradition in science and aeronautic engineering.
UK is still a significant player as far as cutting-edge R&D in biology and medicine is concerned.
No doubt about it, and I would be the last person to deny it.
Complain about this comment
MAII:
"real money" used to be Europeans' joke about primitive American tourists who didn't know any better.
It seems though that the last laugh is, after all, on us.
Seeing that euro is indeed not a real money.
Complain about this comment
#64
"Seriously, the U.S. 'brains' department would seem validated by the BBC UK News page: Check out the story & graphic about Nobel Prize Winners.
Unsurprisingly the UK figures prominently, too."
I think we always knew that the US and Europe contribute 95% of all Nobel Prize winners. The US figure, at 320 (ish) is particularly impressive.
In the interests of completeness, and in the context of the assertion of MA2 that Europe is not creative or inventive, and has no influence on the modern world, the countries that make up the now EU have won 430 (ish) Nobel prizes. One quarter of the 320 "Americans" who won Nobel Prizes were European born, raised and educated. Despite this the US is still the number one Nobel nation, except in literature. So I suppose, in ethnic terms, 240 Americans have won Nobel prizes and over 500 Europeans. Make of that what you will ,all those who think Europe uncreative and stifled by tyrannical dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
#66
"It seems though that the last laugh is, after all, on us.
Seeing that euro is indeed not a real money."
And here I was, on the brink of posting a gracious reply to your magnanimous #65,something which MA2 would be congenitally unable to do, and I wait 5 minutes and read this. Back to square one.
Complain about this comment
"Despite this the US is still the number one Nobel nation, except in literature."
If one awards PC writers like Andric and Soyinka what do you expect?
P.S. I hope you're aware that folks like Borghes, Gombrowicz, Herbert or Orwell had a snow-ball-in-hell chance since they were non PC?
Complain about this comment
"Seriously, the U.S. 'brains' department would seem validated by the BBC UK News page: Check out the story & graphic about Nobel Prize Winners.
Unsurprisingly the UK figures prominently, too."
Long time ago I've asked West-haters how many Nobel prize laureats in science&medicine in the last 100 years hailed from the Muslim world?
Guess what: still no answer.
Complain about this comment
67 commonsense writes:
"In the interests of completeness, and in the context of the assertion of MA2 that Europe is not creative or inventive, and has no influence on the modern world, the countries that make up the now EU have won 430 (ish) Nobel prizes. One quarter of the 320 "Americans" who won Nobel Prizes were European born, raised and educated. Despite this the US is still the number one Nobel nation, except in literature. So I suppose, in ethnic terms, 240 Americans have won Nobel prizes and over 500 Europeans. Make of that what you will ,all those who think Europe uncreative and stifled by tyrannical dictatorship."
I wrote the following on 6th Oct in "Europe's shrinking public sector" in reply to Homer Simpsons claim that:
"The conditions to create the modern world, the soil where the seeds could take root were in America, not Europe."
One way to see whether he had a point was to look at a list of Nobel prize winners since their beginning in 1901. A very interesting endeavor it proved to be.
I started with the years 1901 to 1939 and the beginning of WWII in all the categories. The US managed 22 Nobels as against the three major European countries of Germany 44, UK 30 and France 27, a total of 101. Of course, after WWII, the US being the winner and carting off scientists, chemists and the likes of von Braun to start their space race, manged to increase their prize winners considerably, although 25% of their winners were born and educated mainly in Europe.
Up to date the US has totalled 320 Nobel winners against 489 Europeans in countries that make up todays EU. So there you have it Homer, not as clear cut as you may like to think - there is life in the old continent yet."
I suppose the information is interesting enough to bear repetition although I don't think Homer replied as he prefers to remain blinkered and ignores any facts that get in the way of his skewed world view.
Complain about this comment
#70
Long time ago I've asked West-haters how many Nobel prize laureats in science&medicine in the last 100 years hailed from the Muslim world?
Guess what: still no answer.
Well the answer is, with a margin for error due to lack of time.....12
Complain about this comment
#70
"Long time ago I've asked West-haters how many Nobel prize laureats in science&medicine in the last 100 years hailed from the Muslim world?"
I apologise, I read your post too hastily. In Science and Medicine I think the answer is only 3.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work #50.
you argued (in #35) ""What is needed is the Free-will to take steps to make changes where they are needed..", I merely pointed out that this is naïve (IMO) given that guaranteed ('constitutional') rights, human rights, etc count for nothing now.
commonsense_expressway #55.
"I dont understand the connection between what George said and the use of the £50 note. Please explain."
JorgeG1's "OCBCD" and "NCSS" highlighted why the UK is, de facto, not part of the EU, and showed it's essentially down to 'attitude'. in this context, I thought it worthwhile to point out another -- equally silly -- manifestation of the outdated thinking so prevalent in the UK.
Complain about this comment
How many Nobel Prize winners have come from Africa or South America recently?
Complain about this comment
jr4412
re #74
Sorry, but in both cases can You run that by me again:
1) I'm aware Human Rights are an issue; however, what has 'rendition' got to do with my comment that 'Free-will' is needed for the UK sovereignty or holding a referendum on the EU to work? I know it's (Acts) not 'guaranteed' that is why I gave examples of how it might.
and,
2) Like Common & others I don't get how a 50 Pound note is a 'silly manifestation' & example of 'attitude'? The UK's currency stops at 50, call me out-dated if You wish, but how is a 50 quid note "..out-dated thinking"!?
What is wrong with the 50 EUro note: Nothing, so far as I'm aware!?
Finally, jorgeG1's anachronistic, stereotypical labelling is well past its sell-by date: He's been contributing that sort of stuff for ages and if anything it really shows-up his condescending 'attitude' in-place of genuine points of view.
Complain about this comment
#74
"I thought it worthwhile to point out another -- equally silly -- manifestation of the outdated thinking so prevalent in the UK."
The highest US note in circulation is, i believe, the $100 bill. Only a couple of years ago the £-$ rate was 2:1. So..$100 was worth...ta da!....£50
I guess "outdated thinking" is not reserved just to the UK? It may also be worth understanding a little better the motivation behind this, which is to try and cut down on fraud, not because the countries are stuck in some ideological time-warp.
I genuinely cannot think of one occasion in 20 years as an adult, where I wanted to have cash in a denomination higher than £50. I can barely recall ever even using a £50, purchases like that were always with cheque or card. Who buys their fags and booze with a £50 note? Who wouldnt be prepared to use 5x £20 notes at Tescos instead of a £100 note? Businesses making significant purchases use cards, cheques ,or bank transfers. I think you're the one being silly mate, jumping on this anti-British bandwagon, which your post history suggests is not your style.
Complain about this comment
#75
"How many Nobel Prize winners have come from Africa or South America recently? "
If you take out Peace and Literature, hardly any at all since Nobel started. Perhaps 2 Africa, 3 South America at quick glance.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work #76.
"Sorry, but in both cases can You run that by me again"
sigh..
(1) I'm saying that in a world where extraordinary renditions and torture are perpetrated, all this referenda, voting, thinking of ourselves as creatures with 'inalienable rights', etc stuff is simply wishful -- and irrelevant -- thinking.
(2) stopping with a £50 note is so -- quaint. have you been to a shop recently (I mean since the 1970s)? have you noticed the prices? how do you feel paying £900 for, say, a holiday in £10s and £20s? does having a large wad of small notes make you feel 'rich'? :-) I'm saying that a £50 note may have been adequate when a new car cost less than £200, but those days have long gone. outdated (no hyphen!) thinking, a hankering for the good old days? yes. modern outlook? no. exactly like the rest of this crusty, inward-looking establishment.
Complain about this comment
commonsense_expressway #77.
"I genuinely cannot think of one occasion in 20 years as an adult, where I wanted to have cash in a denomination higher than £50."
hm, I can think of dozens, I really feel 'stupid' counting out £700 or £800 in £10s and £20s (maybe because I used to use larger denominations in DM and Euros??), and I think adding a £100 (and even a £500) would go some way to make larger purchases easier. as for using credit/debit cards -- they have their uses too, as did cheques (until they fell by the wayside).
"I think you're the one being silly mate, jumping on this anti-British bandwagon, which your post history suggests is not your style."
thank you for taking the trouble to read through the stuff; anti-British? no, the UK is, in many respects, a wonderful place to live and prosper. however, it is worth remembering (and pointing out!) that our prosperity often comes at a very high cost to others.
Complain about this comment
#80
"I think adding a £100 (and even a £500) would go some way to make larger purchases easier. "
Yes, i think adding a £100 note would be reasonable for the reasons you mentioned. Interestingly, Scotland and Northern Ireland do produce £100 notes, but not England/Wales.
Complain about this comment
#58 Jean Luc wrote--
´But the dealings of the UK citizens with the EU are mainly done through this political elite, so why are such an ardent critic of the EU, when in fact you only have to blame your own government for the fact that the EU has 'taken away' sovereignty from the UK (citizens)?
Another question: Supposing you want to regaint UK sovereignty by leaving the EU, you do know that you would lay all that sovereignty (just the de iure sov. of course, because de facto it is impossible to be sovereign in this globalised world) back in the hands of that very same elite that (supposedly) betrayed the UK citizen all that time when the UK was part of the EU. How would this than be better than the current situation, you would be ruled by untrustworthy british politicans and bureaucrats instead of untrustworthy european politicians and bureaucrats? Not much progress there it seems´
CBW replied with #62
´So, yes, I do know the risks entailed in regaining/reallocating 'sovereignty' to the Westminster 'political elite': However, it is my belief the UK and especially English Citizens have a much better chance of attaining a 21st Century Bill of Rights once No.10 & Westminster's occupants are no longer able to conveniently blame the EU and England's Citizens can focus firmly on England's issues.´
CBW-- and which RIGHTS should be BILLED ???
You have us spinning around like tops --- depending on the weather and now the arrogance ´It is my belief----´
when the penny finally ( until the next wind change ) dropped.
Complain about this comment
#79. At 8:49pm on 08 Oct 2010, jr4412 ,
Dream on, if you go into a shop or Cafe or Restaurant with a greater than 50 Euro you have little chance they will accept it, there is too much fraud on these denominations for one thing and secondly an awful lot of 'Black' work is paid by them. Just where in the EU do you think that is not the case as my experience is that it's the strangers (not locals) that normally come into a cafe and ask for change (often of 500 Euro), Rofl, Rofl, PS, I ran a cafe for just over a year.
Complain about this comment
CBW
If I understand your present arguments properly --
1. It is back to the future without the EU having any say within the UK .
2. the UK (English) political elite should be curbed (?) by a Bill of Rights.
What do you not like about Britain that a Bill of Rights would protect (apart from #1) ?
Are you now for or against a change to the ´Oath of Allegiance´????
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 #83.
I'm talking about paying for a holiday, a pair of speakers, a new computer, whatever. I am not in the habit of buying a cup of coffee with a £50 note, and (like you) would be wary of anyone who tries to. "Rofl, Rofl.." good for you, I'm told it's healthy. ;)
Complain about this comment
#84. At 10:28pm on 08 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
Your questions were curious but then you said "re you now for or against a change to the ´Oath of Allegiance´???? "
Who would you like to make the oath of allegiance to, the communist party or rather as communists now call themselves to be elected, the Socialists or Democrats. Your beloved fellow travellers made themselves multi-millionaires/billionaires throughout the fall of the USSR, and after only 70 years, and you continue to refer to crazy notions about centuries old feudal systems, royalty, and whatever else you dream up.
Complain about this comment
#87 Buzet
Ask CBW that question.
I am also curious how he would change Britain with a Bill of Rights yet keep the status-qo as an ideal.
Complain about this comment
#87. At 11:01pm on 08 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
'Bill of Rights', how about a 'Bill of Responsibilities' to be an integral part of it, after all if you are not responsible why do you merit rights. The current status-quo is that the victim is the aggressor because they have something the 'rights' claimant wants. I'm sure CBW will concur with that, eh CBW?
Complain about this comment
#88
Much like Human Rights
Or did I misunderstand ?
Complain about this comment
Shouldn't be long now before everyone in Europe gets an EU tax surcharge to help clean up the Red River that once upon a time used to be the Blue Danube. Of course the poorer countries like Hungary will get a large portion of their money returned while the richer ones like Britain, France, and Germany will pay the extra amount to make up for it.
Complain about this comment
#90 Marcus
Didn´t the EU offer help with Katrina ?
They should also station hospital ships off our coast for our uninsured to repay the Care packages.
don´t you agree ?
Complain about this comment
58. At 11:18am on 08 Oct 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
" ... in fact you only have to blame your own government for the fact that the EU has 'taken away' sovereignty from the UK (citizens)..."
EUpris:
We do not have to blame ONLY our own government.
Our own government/system of government is/was clearly rubbish and worthy of blame.
Not ONLY but ALSO!
It is quite clear that there has been a pan-"EU" anti-democratic conspiracy.
The Constitution Rubbish was renamed the Lisbon Treaty to give anti-democratic "EU"-unspeakables the excuse to claim that it was different and did not require a referendum.
This conspiracy included Merkel, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown and David Miliband. They belong in jail.
It is difficult to say that it was the "EU" because who knows what the "EU" is. Are the above named the "EU"? Somebody might say: "Can you define the EU"
I will say that the imposition of the Lisbon Political Toxic Waste required anti-democratic behaviour by the British establishment and the "EU", whereby the label "EU" is simply the best expression I can find and not something I would be prepared to define.
The imposition of the Post Lisbon "EU" Dictatorship has shown that representative "democracy" is not working in the UK or in other parts of Europe.
Democracy is working in Switzerland which is why Switzerland is free of the nauseating "EU".
We need not only to free ourselves of the despicable "EU" we need big changes in the UK including changes to our voting system and the acceptance of our right to have referenda not just when the sickening establishment thinks they will give the "desired" result.
I strongly suspect that British politicians have been bribed to support the "EU"-Monster.
We have not yet caused enough trouble in the "EU". We need to up our game.
time when the UK was part of the EU. How would this than be better than the current situation, you would be ruled by untrustworthy british politicans and bureaucrats instead of untrustworthy european politicians and bureaucrats? Not much progress there it seems
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
"The EU has many faults: it interferes too much, and the Lisbon Treaty has left it beset by rivalries in Brussels, as indeed we warned. And we cannot forget that its democratic legitimacy was undermined by Labour's disgraceful failure to hold a referendum [on the Lisbon Treaty]".
Foreign Secretary William Hague speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, 6 October
EUpris: That statement does not go far enough.
The Conservatives are not resisting the "EU" enough.
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
"Lord Mandelson still receives £8,600 a month from the EU. Former Business Secretary Lord Mandelson is still receiving an annual "transitional allowance" of £103,465 from the EU, despite making £400,000 in serialisation rights alone from his book over a number of years. The payment of £8,622 a month is set at 50% of his former salary as EU Trade Commissioner. (Telegraph, 25 September)
...
The UK's contribution to the EU budget rose to £6.7 billion in 2009. The EU's 2009 Financial Report showed that the UK's annual contribution to the EU budget went up from £6.2 billion in 2008 to £6.7 billion in 2009, meaning that the average British household paid £440 to be a member of the EU last year but received only £312 back in direct benefits. (Telegraph, 29 September)"
EUpris: Bring me a bucket!
Complain about this comment
This is a move in the right direction, and it should have been acted up before now.
The government must still act according to it's previous commitments to take advantage of all opportunities to repatriate areas of sovereignty previously lost to the EU.
Complain about this comment
jr4412
Re #79
Sigh indeed!
Because of 'rendtion' "...inalienable rights.. irrelevant.."
How You come to that conclusion is beyond me: When the Mongol hordes murdered millions, when the Spanish, British, French were slaughtering indigenous natives, when Nazis committed genocide, when Rwanda's...
Come on 'jr': We've (i.e. the 'West') come a very long way, and though there are steps back (e.g. 'rendition') such as the murderous attack on the Twin Towers, Iraq catastrophe etc. there is just no sense in suggesting debate about a Nation's 'Sovereignty' is pointless.
Clearly, as a part of a Political-Judicial-Social effort to avoid all the above pitfalls 'sovereignty' is well worth establishing one way or another.
2) "...quaint.. think... hankewring for the good old days.."
I've still absolutely no idea what You mean: I'm fairly sure most UK Citizen won't know either - - the issuing & the usage of a 50 quid note has nothing to do with former 'empire' - - it has everything to do with the UK Currency needing a moderate high denomination note in circulation. Much as the 'modern' UK abandoned the 1 Pound note for a Coin and introduced a 2 Pound coin - - ease of use, recognition of currency are all in the equation, especially when Credit Cards now take care of more than 1 in 2 Monetary Transactions and the UK is at the forefront of that usage as its Consumer Debt starkly reveals!
Complain about this comment
#96
I've agreed with jr4412 that it wouldnt be a big deal to introduce a £100 note , especially since the Scots and N.Irish already do. But it certainly has nothing to do with 19th century thinking so thats where my compromise ends :) I still find it amazing that someone would sit there counting out tens and twenties, or even fifties to pay for a holiday, car, or white goods when all the best advice is take advantage of Britains excellent consumer credit laws and PAY BY CARD!
Both the Chargeback scheme for debit cards and the Section 75 legislation for credit cards give the consumer massive protection against fraud, faulty goods and undelivered services. I myself have reclaimed £8000 (yep, 8 grand) back from HBOS under Section 75 several years ago. So, paradoxically, whilst trying to make a point about Britain being backward in its thinking, we are actually at the cutting edge and its only him that is backward in his thinking!
(I appreciate some people dont have cards or bank accounts but I assume they dont have enough money to worry about the denomination its in!)
Complain about this comment
QOT
Re #82
First off: CONGRATULATIONS! You actually managed to join in a debate with some degree of relevance in Your contribution.
Of course, #82 relied heavily on Quotations from JeanLuc & myself as 2 experienced slugger-outs on these Blogs, nevertheless, it is a start for You - - do try to keep to this standard - - i.e. intelligible (not necessarily correct, as JL & I are only right occasionally! TeeHee!) & reasoned points & perspective lending themselves to an exchange of views on a topic.
Of course it was tragically down-hill from there for You: I guess the strain was too much because Your contribution consisted of 2 disjointed sentences!
Inc. the enquiring, "..CBW.. and WHICH RIGHTS should be BILLED..?"
QOT, the ones the UK Coalition Government are proposing for their 2 Bills: The Bills Mr Hewitt's article refers to, the Bills that it is suggested will place on the UK Statute Book the 'supremacy/primacy' of the UK Westminster Parliament must give consent to any and all EU Law eminating from Brussels and indeed from the ECJ; the promise of a UK Referendum if any substantive EU Treaty changes or new Treaty is proposed by Brussels.
Where You are confused about my Comments at my #35 & #62 is because like practically all the English Public I practise a high degree of cynacism & distrust of all Politicians whether National or supra-National.
I.e. In my view the 'Bills' of 'Rights' will in due course become Acts of Parliament: That is not the same as them being used as intended by whichever UK Government is in power.
You know what I mean: E.g. A Referendum to determine Ireland Citizens' view on the Lisbon Treaty - - result of a Democratically held Ballot was 'No' - - game over; but NO, the Dublin & Brussels Leadership thought otherwise and the rest as they say is downright corruption, intrigue & pervertion of the EU-Brussels' declared ruling that all 27 States must Ratify or Lisbon is abandoned... Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-haaaaaaa!
So QOT, unfortunately for You, the only "..SPINNING.." is in Your, Brussels' & Westminster's duplicitous minds.
Complain about this comment
@92. At 04:08am on 09 Oct 2010, EUPRISONER209456731
You are quite a laugh my friend, with your 'conspiracy' theory.
You do know that the 'EU' can stand on its head if it wants, it won't have anything to say in the UK if the UK leaders THEMSELVES don't agree to this.
Therefore the ultimate guardian of UK sovereignty are UK political leaders in cabinet and parliament. No need to blame Sarkozy or Merkel for anything.
Re "Democracy is working in Switzerland which is why Switzerland is free of the nauseating "EU"."
Nice of you to give proof yourself you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about.
In fact, Switserland is the country which has concluded the most treaties with the EU of all countries in the world. For example: switserland is part of Schengen and free movement and is OBLIGED therefore to accept Romanians and Bulgarians after the accession of those countries in 2007 to the EU.
All in all, the EU (and only the EU, not talking about individual member states) has 179 agreements with Switserland, of which more than 70 bilateral.
You see how blatantly wrong you are to say Switserland is free of the EU?
In some respects, Switserland is even 'less free' from the EU than the UK (an EU member state!!) is (e.g. Schengen).
Perhaps you should start reading something about the EU before giving your unfounded opinions about it ;)
Complain about this comment
#89. At 11:22pm on 08 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"#88
Much like Human Rights
Or did I misunderstand ?"
No, you did not misunderstand, I see a great overlap between a "Bill of Rights" and "Human Rights" legislation, they are in effect the same thing as they should cover your rights and responsibilities as both a human being and a citizen of the country where you reside or did reside.
Complain about this comment
#98
"like practically all the English Public I practise a high degree of cynacism & distrust of all Politicians whether National or supra-National."
I think that might have something to do with the number of lawyers who end up in politics, and the fact that Britain classes the legal profession as an A1 occupation, when in fact to most of us they are nothing more than duplicitous snakes, worse than the most desperate estate agent or newspaper hack, quite prepared to send their grannies to the gallows for a quid. Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work #96.
"..no sense in suggesting debate about a Nation's 'Sovereignty' is pointless."
we're all entitled to our opinions, and mine happens to be that sovereignty is neither here nor there given the socio-economical realities. interesting you should mention genocides like the one in Rwanda since that is an excellent example of people being sacrificed like pawns for our benefit (ie cheaper consumer gadgets). http://www.cellular-news.com/coltan/
commonsense_expressway #97.
"I still find it amazing that someone would sit there counting out tens and twenties, or even fifties to pay for a holiday, car, or white goods when all the best advice is take advantage of Britains excellent consumer credit laws and PAY BY CARD!"
yes, incomprehensible, isn't it? :-)
one of the benefits of paying cash for white goods and the like is the bargaining power; for instance, our self-cleaning oven should have cost £799 (~ three years ago), waving cash and asking for a discount to close the deal on he spot saved £60, not very much money perhaps but 'every little helps' ;) as for consumer protection, proper paperwork (invoice, till receipt, filled-in guarantee card) takes care of that.
Complain about this comment
#94. At 04:18am on 09 Oct 2010, EUprisoner209456731,
I'm not sure where you got those figures from but they don't match the figures for the 2008 financial report, the UK had 10113.9 million Euro of Revenue, 7309.9 million of Euro Expenditure, and received a rebate to the value of 6252 million of Euro, leaving it the 5th largest net contributor with 2804 million Euro. I suspect the figure of 6.2 refers to the rebate and not the contribution.
Incidently, prior to 2008 the UK was number two net contributor, so it show how much damage Bliar and Brown did to the UK economy for it's revenue/expenditure to be so effected.
Complain about this comment
All this talk of bank notes and human rights has got me very excited. I enjoy bank notes very much. Banknotes and clowns make everyone happy, nun? I particularly like the Swiss notes, as they are colorful and crisp, generally speaking, and they come in a wide variety of flavours. The thousand franc note is exceedingly groovy, and useful too. If you are wanting to do large discreet transfers of money, an envelope moderately stuffed with such notes can be carried in your suit breast pocket with no discomfort. You can also insure these cash transactions for periods of a few hours. It sounds weird, but if you go to your bank in Zurich and tell them you need to take 200 thousand in cash to the airport, they will quietly count it out for you, and offer to insure your trip to the airport. So if you pay 150 francs, you are covered, in case you get robbed. I still haven't worked out how that really works. I think it means that if you pay that "insurance fee", then they will notify the police and you will have covert surveillance following you during your transit. That wouldn't surprise me. The Swiss love that sort of thing, and the Swiss police especially enjoy knowing what is going on and then saying nothing about it.
But the 200 franc note is also remarkably useful. You'd think the 100 franc note would be enough, but there is no doubt that carrying a few grand around in your wallet is far easier with 200 notes rather than 100.
On the subject of money and democracy, there is a very cool story y'all can verify and learn from, regarding the Swiss and money, and democracy. Prior to the year 2000, Swiss banks were required to have 40% of their capital as gold reserves. Now somehow the fashion got around that this was a stupid idea, and the clever bankers in their suits raised Cain until the mob followed them into a popular referendum on the issue. In a hotly debated public contest, the Swiss public voted to change the rules, and half this gold was sold. Curiously, there was a large turnout for this vote. Everyone had an opinion. Well, catastroph.
Not only has the price of gold sky rocketed since the Swiss voted to sell all theirs at the bottom of the market, the same bankers who pushed so hard for the sale have disgraced the reputation of the country by getting involved in the sub prime scandal. That is referred to over here as "the American idea", meaning a catastroph that was very large and which spoke far too loudly, and which everyone believed in despite it's ridiculous premis.
In a way, I think Swiss are secretly in admiration of the American bankers, for pulling off such a bold swindle. America is widely admired in Switzerland, for being all the things switzerland isn't. It's large, it's loud, it's perceived as having no rules.
But anyway, it's curious to note how the media and public have reacted to the awful embarrassment of having voted for such a massive catastroph as the gold sale. You see, they can't blame anyone except themselves. Not only did they vote for it, they had long and loud opinions about it. Lots of young people in new suits were pointing their fingers at old farmers and calling them stupid and old fashioned.
So now, you don't see that anymore. Young people in suits tend to say very little, and the old farmers are paid more respect. Everyone in the society is very conscious of what happened, and the shame and the blame is communal. Everywhere if you speak to the Swiss, of any profession, they say the same thing. "never again". Never again will they...... What, exactly? It is hard to know. There is only this unshakable sentiment that it must never happen again. So whether that means selling gold, or whether it means disrespecting the older generation, or whether it means listening to bankers about policy, or whether it means all of these things, is not clear to me.
But what is clear, and for my taste remarkable and unique in the modern world, is the raw fact of collective responsibility and shame in financial policy. Uniquely, no party got it wrong. Nor any civil servant. It was the people, voting together, who got it wrong. The way that shapes the society is extremely interesting. The Swiss are forced to be communally humble, and to admit their collective failings. And that brings them together, and stops an endless cycle of blame and accusations dominating the political landscape.
Real democracy is a wonderful thing, insofar as it creates a team spirit and brings folks together. It is a privilege to watch it, and to live amongst the Swiss, and to be protected by such an advanced system.
Earning a stinking big salary and paying almost no tax is nice, too.
Complain about this comment
#102
"as for consumer protection, proper paperwork (invoice, till receipt, filled-in guarantee card) takes care of that."
It might do with a reputable high street, solvent, vendor. Means nothing if the company goes bust or does a runner. I would never have seen my £8000 again without section 75 protection. As for getting cash discounts, yeah, thats a fair point.
Complain about this comment
#99. At 10:08am on 09 Oct 2010, Jean Luc,
Whilst Switzerland may have a lot of agreements in place to follow EU directives etc, one thing it does not do is participate in the Socialist redistribution of wealth as enshrined in the EU annual budget. DT can of course confirm that. It can pick and choose what legislation it so wishes and reject those it does not like, something I'm sure most English would love to be able to do.
#104, DT,
Sort of confirms my opinions that most bankers are just low grade book-keepers with an odd few 'expert accountants' who proved to be easy meat for the cozeners of the USA, as they were not so expert as they thought they were.
Complain about this comment
@ 44. At 04:45am on 08 Oct 2010, Huaimek wrote:
"I am not alone in being a British Europhobe , in fact we may be the majority of the British population ."
That was exactly my point.
"Many British people think that successive British governments have signed treaties that are not supported by the will of the people , Maastricht for one ."
Come off it...my point is that "many British people" have been indoctrinated, either by a) foreign Tea Party or similar ideology plutocrats who own vast swathes of the British media and/or b) Oxbridge and similar elitist institutions, into believing delusions of post-imperial world power grandeur/arrogance by making them swallow exactly what you said above.
How easier it is for the vast majority of the ignorant masses (either Oxbridge or sink estate 'educated') to be fed this story:
A. "We are now ruled by the EU bureaucrats ... blah, blah, blah, ... when we only voted to join the EEC... blah, blah,..."
... than this:
B. "My dear ignorant masses, in fact, the UK NEVER left the EEC, this was only part of a smokescreen created by Oxbridge plutocrats and unelected tabloid bureaucrats to feed rubbish to an infantilized and ignorant populace. The UK NEVER left the EEC because the ONLY fundamental changes that gave birth to the EU from its predecessor the EEC were these two:
- The creation of Economic and Monetary Union
- The creation of a Border Union
As the UK rejected both, for the reasons outlined by poster #38 above, the UK may be nominally in the EU, but de facto it is not. De facto it is still in the EEC that the British populace voted for in 1975. Any changes other than the two above in the transition from the EEC to the EU were just rearranging the bureaucratic furniture."
What do you think would be easier to understand by an ignorant and infantilized populace, A or B?
"Smart you may think yourself , but the EEC is not the same as the EU , even if the latter is an evolution from the EEC .
Whatever name you think appropriate , the EEC was a looser trading relationship between sovereign nation states . The EU is an attempt to bond the member states into one ."
Ditto above
"I believe that the majority of British people do not want to be part of an Ever Closer Union or a single federal state ."
That's my point precisely. The British people chose to reject Ever Closer Union by remaining in the EEC of the 1980s.
"In my opinion the EU is teetering on the brink of failure , despite the undying faith of its believers and will never succeed in creating the dreamed of European Nation State ."
It must be you together with the Oxbridge plutocrats and the unelected tabloid bureaucrats who dream of Nation States. I definitely don't, whether it is British Nation State or European Nation State. However, as I am sure you would consider Economic and Monetary Union and Border Union as clear proof that a European Nation State is being created, two points:
1. You can continue to rest in peace with your sweet Nation State wet dreams as the UK is not part of that European superstate by virtue of rejecting both of the above.
2. If you really think, as I am sure you would, that the Euro and Schengen are part of a European superstate in the making (I don't think for a minute that these two pillars create a superstate, just closer integration which is a completely different concept, although one that again is it impossible to explain to ignorant masses), then you are contradicting yourself, as the 'dream of the European superstate' (or Nation State if you prefer) by that logic would already be a reality, not a dream, as the EMU and Schengen date back from the early/mid nineties.
Complain about this comment
@ 99. At 10:08am on 09 Oct 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
"In some respects, Switserland is even 'less free' from the EU than the UK (an EU member state!!) is (e.g. Schengen)."
Jean Luc, my friend, that's exactly the point I have been trying to make for years but I've sort of given up trying to explain these subtleties to Europhobes.
"We are ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats" is as much subtlety they will understand; in fact they have been fed this dross from the unelected tabloid bureaucrats since the EEC/EU was a sparkle in Monnet's eye.
Complain about this comment
#107. At 11:13am on 09 Oct 2010, JorgeG1,
Spoken by a product of state controlled, Socialist leaning media where you never see much criticism of all things EU since it is perfect, and where the Euro is the worlds strongest currency, and where a European Socialst Federal Repulic is a dream to be achieved at all costs. The only thing the state controlled media have not yet done so far as I know is to call for the forced re-education of all those here who question the official stance, but then Siberia is not yet in the EU.
People like you insult the British as being fooled and manipulated, but it is yourself that has been fooled and manipulated as you show all the signs of long term indoctrination with your inability to consider any form of alternative to the rapidly failing EU. Since being in Belgium for the last twenty years I have seen a sea change of opinion as to the benefits of the EU, at first all were very much pro, now many question what is happening and why it has lost its beneficial direction to the insane pursuit of political dreams by discredited politicians.
Complain about this comment
Re #107
And the following considered, logical, rationale arguments of the ardent & obviously superior mind of the 'pro-EU' lobbyist:
"..indoctrinated by.. Foreign Tea party.."
"..delusions of post-imperial World power.."
"..or sink-estate 'educated'.."
"..ignorant masses.."
".. feed rubbish to an infantilised and ignorant populace.."
"..rest in peace with your sweet Nation State wet dreams.."
Thanks to JorgeG1 for reinforcing, if it were ever needed, the view that some at least of the 'pro-EU' attitude to those who take an opposing view is one of insufferable arrogance condemning 'pro-EU' at every level.
Complain about this comment
CommonE
Re #101
There are variations on this 'lawyer' theme:
1st News Reader: There was to be a conference of 5,000 Lawyers from across the World, but the cruise ship they were on sank and everyone was lost.
2nd News Reader: Well, it's a start!
Complain about this comment
acorn, you should have called in Terminex before it was too late.
Complain about this comment
Re #68
I meant no offense.
It was simply alluding to the fact that many a poster (most of them from EU) remarked that euro cannot survive as currency based on a pool of clearly incompatible economies of European countries with quite different levels of corruption and work ethics (cf. ClubMed).
As a tourist in Europe I always appreciated a fact that I don't have to exchange 'real money' into different currencies every couple of hundred kilometers.
[I still remember them local currencies and even 'old' French francs,
not to mention old Turkish lira (@ 350,000 to a US dollar)]
And BTW. I've never said anything derogatory about British pound.[check]
Complain about this comment
"According to the Daniel Webster story:
'It is said the devil never came back to New Hampshire..'.
Of course that is where it all falls apart: George Dubya Bush visited NH a few times and we all now who was at his shoulder, 'whispering in his ear'!"
CBW: the last man who referred to "W" as "Satan" was certain Comical Hugo [Chavez] in the UN.
But it seems Hugo is himself facing hell in Venezuala these days. :)
Complain about this comment
109. At 11:41am on 09 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
"[... incomprehensible ramble about insulting the British ...]"
Not sure what point you are making but I am sure that it has got nothing, zero to do with the one I am making, which is very simple and IT IS NOT DEFENDING THE EU:
The simple point I was trying to make was in reply to post 18:
"A return to EEC status might be acceptible , but ever closer union to a single federal State ,
" Europe " is not ."
It is impossible for the UK to 'return to EEC status', whether 'acceptible' or 'unacceptible' for the simple reason that one cannot return to a place they never left.
Second point: The stone cold ignorant masses have been fed outright lies by the establishment, whether Oxbridge or unelected tabloid bureaucrats, to make them believe that the UK is a member of an institution, the EU, which is different to the one that the UK itself voted to join, the EEC, when in fact the UK never left the EEC, since the EU minus Euro minus Schengen minus Charter of Fundamental Rights = EEC. For obvious reasons it is extremely convenient and imperative for the establishment to make the populace believe that as otherwise their only argument would be that what the populace voted in 1975 was wrong.
Where exactly I am defending or extolling the virtues of the EU, please advise.
Complain about this comment
Yes, the mass killing of lawyers has long been a fine idea without a practical plan for implementation.
The problem is, the paradox in fact, that you'd need a lawyer to organize it properly. You need someone calm and calculating, and capable of following a set of rules, to make sure the shrieking goons dressed in red did not butcher the shrieking goons dressed in blue, and visa versa, on account for mistaking each other for lawyers, and acting violently before thinking clearly.
This is what I call the "parasite paradox". There is no question lawyers are parasites, but parasites are curious creatures. They inevitably feed from their host without killing it, or at least not killing it before both it and they can breed the next generation, to carry on the tradition. And the host is inevitably as dumb as a post. That is what allows the parasite to survive. So that paradox is that in order to be rid of the curse of parasitical lawyers, worker drones would need to be as smart as lawyers. Or put another way, unless and until worker drones believe they are capable of voting on the laws they live under, and reject all systems of representation as an affront to their fundamental human rights, they must be destined to be farmed like stupid beasts.
Until then, they are the idiot host for the parasites who live in symbiosis with them.
That is what makes a parasite different from a viral infection, you see. A bacterial or viral pest kills is host before the host can multiply, and thus plagues tend to burn themselves out. They kill their hosts, and thus they kill their own meal ticket.
But a parasite is different. The parasite effectively farms the host organism, taking a sustainable quantity of blood from it and leaving enough for the host to survive until tomorrow.
That is what lawyers do, in systems of representative democracy. They organize the dumb herd of grunting drone worker beasts into orderly mobs, and then feed from them like a farmer tending his chattels.
But, to use the farm analogy a little more, the lawyer here is the cowboy, not the ranch owner. The lawyer herds the beasts, and eats of their flesh, but he doesn't own them. Not in an advanced market economy.
It's the bankers who sponsor the party (all parties) in the representative system, and they own the herd.
The lawyers just make sure the dumb animals are put into the trucks and sent quietly off to slaughter when their time comes.
A long time ago, sometime last year, I really believed that it was the role of the lawyer to free the dumb cows, to give them liberty.
I'm older and wiser now. You all on this blog, and Gavin, have taught me the futility of trying to mold stiff clay into pleasing shapes.
I figure now that I'm a cowboy because because because because because that is what I am. I didn't want to be a dumb worker beast, herded around like a fool, with my work taken by the corrupt party system. So i became a cowboy.
But the other dumb worker beasts kept grazing, and though they do not like the sting of the whip, they walk into the truck and walk into the abattoir easily enough. They take the easy path, in a pitiful and unthinking fashion. It is how the do, it is how they roll, it is what they are.
So I figure it is pretty stupid to talk to dumb animals as if they are cowboys. Better to be what you are, and take your place in the grand circle of life.
I don't own the farm where you folks graze, and in fact where I live we don't farm animals like you as items of our property. You might say that the Swiss, with their direct democracy, has become vegetarians with full scale animal rights. Or you might say the Swiss have evolved to a higher state of political consciousness.
But we are still carnivores, myself especially, and if someone is farming and selling meat we'll buy it. Of course sometimes the swiss folks moan about that, and you be amazed at the way cows from farms nearby often look at us cooking up a BBQ and moo with indignation at our behaviour. It's ridiculous. Those dumb cows are mooing at us, and yet when they get lead to the truck and to the slaughter yard on their own farm, they comply.
And we don't even have a slaughter yard! We buy all our dumb meat, we import it. We have to. Farming human beings is not allowed here. Everyone votes on the laws under which they live.
But anyways, the world is what it is and we are what we are. I earn a freaking fortune advising runaway cows and foreign farmers alike. It's all the same to me.
I'd like to see everyone become vegetarian, but it doesn't bother me if they don't. We'll all be dead a long time, and speaking to cows is a little crazy.
By the way, CBW, I forgot to give you some free advice in my previous post.
Submit fewer posts, and think more about those you do submit.
You desire to be heard is exceeding your desire to gain respect, and unkind folks might attribute that to a mental deficiency.
Complain about this comment
jr4412
Re #102
Must admit I knew almost nothing other than the brand name 'Coltan'.
However, as the Rwandan Hutu-Tutse Genocide was 1994 and the Rwandan interventions in the Congo since that period I imagine there was some connection to the Congo which is the largest supplier of the raw material.
My reading of post-2000 mining & use of Coltan is after the laudable U.N. intervention due to the brutal use of near slave-labour miners most of the 'west' (Sony ?) has undertaken to get this incredibly valuable product from other, less strife-torn regions than Central Africa.
To surely no one's surprise at all the entirely exploitative regime of the Peoples Republic of China has stepped in and now takes 60 to 70% of the Coltan mined from Central Africa.
Complain about this comment
#115. At 1:19pm on 09 Oct 2010, JorgeG1,
First point, please show where in my post 109 I said the phrase "[... incomprehensible ramble about insulting the British ...]", it would seem you are expert at inventing words that have not been said.
Your stance that the UK is still in the position of the EEC is quite frankly absurd, were that to be true the UK would not be subject to the directives and provisions of such treaties as Lisbon. The EU is a lot more than Schengen and the Euro (16 members only), as neither were integral to the EU but in the case of schengen adopted into EU law in 1995, ten years after the schengen agreement. Certain EU member states that for some bizarre reason want ever closer union use them to fool the uneducated masses that the EU is a superstate and National borders are irrelevant, likewise even though the Euro has been a disaster for many of it's members it is portrayed as the saviour of currency speculation to the uneducated masses, and an example of the greatness of ever closer union. Now in the last sentence I was using your terminology about uneducated masses, whereas in fact even though Socialists throughout the EU have been doing their best to dumb down the population with low grade education, the ordinary people are seeing beyond the EU smokescreen and disliking what they see. Many experts are now doing the unthinkable, and saying that the Euro is fatally flawed and making economic and monetary union impossible, many are now waiting for the next country in the Euro-zone to fail, the book has already been opened, odds given and the bets placed, now we wait for the inevitable.
You may also be interested to learn that when the UK voted to join in 1975 that was 11 years before the Single European Act was signed in 1986. The EEC was therefore created after the vote and was not what the UK population voted for. However, yes the politicians of the UK did lie and the truth about the ambitions of the EU politicians was never told. I remember well the campaign for the vote as I was an activist for the 'Yes' vote, but if there had been any indication of what has now surfaced I would have voted 'No'.
Your post has not really spoken about pro or anti the EU, but rather how misguided the population of the UK has been and how its politicians have lied and manipulated the reality of the EU. Unfortunately that is symptomatic of all the politicians and leaders throughout the whole EU and also symptomatic of those countries (or rather their leaders) wanting to join the EU so as to get their snouts into the trough.
Complain about this comment
#116. At 1:25pm on 09 Oct 2010, democracythreat,
You refer to lawyers as calm and calculating and needed to organise their own demise, alternatively people like myself who have been IT programmers and analysts, and who've been through the court system (divorce, child custody) a few times would be far better at being cold, clinical and ruthless in the organisation and execution of such a project, lol.
PS. I liked the parable.
Complain about this comment
#116
What i read was :
"...lawyers are parasites"
(bullshit ,bullshit ,bullshit)
"...I earn a freaking fortune".
Complain about this comment
@ Buzet 118
Your dissertation sounds interesting but frankly very difficult to understand for simple souls like me.
Still not sure what your point is:
"Certain EU member states that for some bizarre reason want ever closer union use them to fool the uneducated masses that the EU is a superstate and National borders are irrelevant, ..."
Are you saying that the Bible (of Little England) says that National borders are sacrosanct and they should be heavily policed and fortified 24/7 ad eternity?
Otherwise not sure what you mean.
For many practical and pragmatic reasons, the 25 countries members of Schengen, which include several non-EU countries, have decided that while national borders are not irrelevant, policing THEIR COMMON borders 24/7 ad eternity is not practical and is a thing of the past; hence they decided to stop policing their common borders. They continue to police their borders vis-à-vis third countries, i.e. non-Schengen countries, which represent ca. 93% of the world population. Therefore, please read a bit more before asserting that "certain EU members have decided that National borders are irrelevant in the name of creating a superstate"
"... likewise even though the Euro has been a disaster for many of it's members it is portrayed as the saviour of currency speculation to the uneducated masses, and an example of the greatness of ever closer union."
The jury is still out. In any case, you are trying to impose your opinion as if the Bible of Little England was the only eternal truth. My own opinion as I and other posters have said in other posts above is that the only entities which are 100% certain to have benefited from the UK not being part of the Euro, without a shadow of a doubt, are the banks. The rest are theories (or passages from the LE Book of Revelation).
Additionally, I and many others are of the opinion that a single market of 27 countries (plus several non-EU countries that are also part of the single market) will always work better with a single currency than with 27. This is not about messianic calls for a superstate, it is about deciding whether you want a single market or a free trading area. Most EU countries (through their legitimately elected parliaments, who are IMHO the right entities to make this kind of decisions) decided they wanted a (workable) single market and not just a free trading area.
Complain about this comment
I like lawyers..because only lawyers will fight for human rights and succeed,
where others fail. Gays, African Americans, Women And Men (all races) have won their "born-with rights" through the courts, Especially in the UK and the USA..no offense to Buzet, ever.
But, just a little perspective from me..though some things Are universal, some rights are not universal.
Ther ARE Gay oppressed people in nations bordering all seven seas. Only Canada or maybe ..Norway ..where peace is revered, would I feel safe.
Texx-sass, never or Kannn-sass, never. Or nevaire--for those who are from that brave country--who opposed the USA--once or twice. :)))
Complain about this comment
Re #122
David, DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS! :)
Complain about this comment
#121. At 2:45pm on 09 Oct 2010, JorgeG1,
You condemn the value of your post by the use of a pathetic attempt at ridicule i.e. 'Little England'. You show your preconceived notions of the UK as being based on a falsehood or prejudice. As for you and 'many' others you must be feeling threatened as the pro group are increasingly becoming a threatened species as the truth behind the EU becomes known to the general public.
You must have overlooked that many Germans are fed up with the Euro and hoping for a return to the safety of the DEM.
As for National borders, humans are territorial, all humans, whether it be their house or province or region or country, but very few relate to a supernational state, and certainly not a manufactured poor quality construct like the EU. In terms of National borders you pour scorn on the UK, yet your schengen has been a godsend for all manner of criminals and especially people and drug smugglers. Do you seriously consider the ability to travel into your neighbouring country without check is worth that, I don't and whenever I go from Belgium to say France or Luxembourg, or Germany, or Holland, I would have no problem if I was to be controlled as safety overcomes personal discomfort. Living in Belgium and knowing some young people through my son I would quite happily have Holland excluded from Schengen as their major export seems to be drugs, oh the benefits of open borders.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23:" Living in Belgium and knowing some young people through my son I would quite happily have Holland excluded from Schengen as their major export seems to be drugs, oh the benefits of open borders."
Things in Holland are changing, though, albeit slowly.
Just look at results of the latest Dutch election.
A major shock for all PC folks.
Complain about this comment
Drugs should be controlled by doctors or pharmacists, yes..no?
I believe yes..young people are robbed by drug use..hehe ..i know..remember..then college ..late..finally to think of it only grad. in 2001:))))
went pt 4 14 yrs but i did it..wrking..and i was numb at grad, but will always remember my achievement..work is ..ok.
Complain about this comment
@ buzzet
"You condemn the value of your post by the use of a pathetic attempt at ridicule i.e. 'Little England'."
Well, maybe but what is certain is that your latest one is a precise brief of the values and beliefs of Little England.
As for "your Schengen" please do save your pathetic personalisations. It is not *my* Schengen, it is 25 European countries' Schengen. You pour scorn on the beliefs and opinions of 26 of the 27 EU countries (plus 3 non-EU) which are either part or will be part of Schengen (including Ireland who is the UK's Schengen hostage but otherwise would have no problem in joining), which, as far as I know, do not have the intention of returning to the eighties and to the dark ages of the iron curtain and policing all intra-European human movements, and, on the other hand, portray the opinion of just the one country as superior. How arrogant.
You are also extending your scorn to the human race in general by arguing among other things that because humans are territorial the UK is right to reject the view of the other 26 EU countries and police humans at its borders with other EU countries but not goods or capital. Goods or capital, in the Book of Revelation of your beloved LE, are sacrosanct and deserve to pass throughout the internal borders of the EU unmolested. Humans, on the other hand, are inferior beings, territorial animals which only deserve to be treated as such, with suspicion, as they are all suspect of being terrorist or criminals unless proven otherwise by HM border police.
Again, it is not *my* Schengen. Almost 30 European countries disagree with you. I suggest you take it directly with them. Do not use me as their proxy for your Europhobe vile.
Complain about this comment
Re #116
Oh pontificating sage of the Swiss I am beholden to You for the advice.
I must admit I feel unworthy: That You find the time in Your immense task of educating the masses for the likes of lowly individual such as myself is humbling. Still, it gives one hope to aspire. Not, of course, to Your insuperable greatness of mind, but to make the odd comment some fellows may find of interest.
Surely not only I deserve this accolade: I do urge You to seek out others & raise them up on Your supremely intellectual, literary shoulders.
Why only a few days ago I was re-reading Your call for the former PM of the UK to be strung up by the thumbs! I was at once struck by the breadth of the thought process that involved: I mean there couldn't be any 'parasite' in those "..cowboy.." loins, could there? Not after revealing that profound level of cognitive progress!
It is so encouraging to read one who knows the "..idiot hosts for the parasites.." so well and is prepared to share that "..dumb as a post.." knowledge in order for us all to gain further insight.
Thanks DemocThreat.
Complain about this comment
buzzard;
"buzzet
"You condemn the value of your post by the use of a pathetic attempt at ridicule i.e. 'Little England'."
Upon visiting the White House once, jug ears once remarked "it really is a small house" to which I observe the contrast between a real leader living in a small house in a huge counry in compared to a pretend leader living in a huge house in a little country.
Complain about this comment
@106 BUZET
Re "Whilst Switzerland may have a lot of agreements in place to follow EU directives etc, one thing it does not do is participate in the Socialist redistribution of wealth as enshrined in the EU annual budget. DT can of course confirm that. It can pick and choose what legislation it so wishes and reject those it does not like, something I'm sure most English would love to be able to do."
Sorry to have to prove you wrong again, but:
1. One of the most remarkable features of the EU compared to national government is precisely the fact that the EU does not really have major redistributive policies.
2. Switserland cannot simply choose the cooperation it prefers with the EU. Have a look at the bilaterals I agreements. Or consider for a while why Switserland would supposedly have volontarily chosen to reform its banking and tax law so that EU MS have access to the bank accounts of EU citizens in Switserland. Switserland was actually forced to agree to this EU request, simply because Switserland is landlocked in the EU and the EU is its major partner. Switserland has no choice but to follow the EU, that is why the Swiss government itself proposed the EEA back in the 90s. This was rejected by the Swiss population, leaving the issue unsolved. The Swiss government then had to start the very lengthy and costly process of negociating all kinds of sectoral bilateral agreements (instead of a single EEA agreement) with the EU to achieve the same result it would have achieved through the EEA. So much for Swiss sovereignty.
Of course if you insist on being naieve in believing Switserland is de facto 'free' from the EU, I won't stop you.
Complain about this comment
@ BUZET
By the way. Switserland does pay for the 'socialist' cohesion policies of the EU, just like Norway does (although unlike Norway not through the EEA)
Example:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/cohesion_fund/Swiss_set_to_apply_payments_to_new_EU_members.html?cid=6327578
Complain about this comment
commonsense_expressway wrote:
"#116
What i read was :
"...lawyers are parasites"
(bullshit ,bullshit ,bullshit)
"...I earn a freaking fortune"."
Curiously, this exactly what I suggested you might say, in my post. It was a long lament about the inevitable futility of talking to folks who are dumber than a bag full of hammers.
I mean, look at poor CBW. He's trying so desperately to make the shapes wot speak that he has lost whatever capacity he might ever have possessed for human dignity. He's a mess. He is braying and snorting like a broke leg donkey stuck halfway down an abandoned well.
Is that nice?
Is that decent?
Nobody wants to see that, it's cruel and nasty, but this is how it goes when folks who should be listening and reading take to talking and writing.
I've tried to help him, goodness knows. I've done my best by dear CBW and this blog. I tried.
Now I've become jaded, and feel myself giving up on him as a completely lost cause. And yet somehow, that is not going to stop him posting so frequently, and with such negligible substance to his content.
At times like this you have to ask "Is there a god?" And if so, why does he hate the English so? Why does he mock them? What divine cruelty could cause an architect of life to put out their brains and yet leave their mouths?
Is the plan to torment the rest of us for what the Israelites did to his son?
Why does he not shut up?
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc wrote:
"1. One of the most remarkable features of the EU compared to national government is precisely the fact that the EU does not really have major redistributive policies."
Really?
So what would you call the distribution of CAP funds?
In the 70's it was over 70% of the budget of the EU, in 2006 it was around 50%, and now if you ask you get cryptic references to 35% "between 2009 and 2013". Which means it hasn't changed a bit, but that we are told that it will.
And what is CAP?
CAP is the redistribution of wealth FROM taxpayers TO the land owning gentry. Who are otherwise known as the "struggling farmers".
What a farce that is. The poor struggling farmers have such an incredibly powerful lobby that they created the EU almost exclusively to transfer wealth from the taxpayer to themselves. Without exaggeration, that was the true purpose of the Treaty of Rome, and that is still by far the main business of the EU. If you want to really understand what the EU is for, and what it does, follow the money.
Billions and billions, the vast majority of ALL the money ever pushed through the whole undemocratic artifice, went FROM workers paying income tax TO the land owning gentry.
I refuse to call the recipients of this money "farmers", because in truth the money went to the people who OWNED the land. The poor sods driving the tractors and chasing the sheep were working for a living wage.
But such is the outrageous power of the landed gentry in Europe, and such is their incredible wealth, that all we ever hear from the press is how poor and struggling they are. The land owners, mind you. Not the guy riding the tractor. The guys who inherited the land. The folks who OWN THE LAND.
These are the people getting the billions from the tax coffers, via the EU. And why?
AHA!!! Because, you see, they are so POOR. That is how come they OWN ALL THE LAND.
Isn't it brilliant? Isn't it just the most fantastic trick that man ever pulled on his fellow man?
You could never dream of such a bold ruse, not if you're sober. Imagine it for a minute: Lord Hoo Hah and his friend Baron Special Chap are seated around a table. Hoo Hah is lamenting his lack of wealth, and the insufferable insolence of the lower orders since the war.
"You know, Special Chap, it's just not on."
"What's not on, Hoo Hah?"
"The lower orders are speaking as if they owned the country, Chap. They feel entitled, somehow. It's an outrage. Have you seen the way they intend to raise the estate tax? A fellow can;t afford to die these days, or the reds will get the lot."
"Yes, well, the peasants have always been revolting, Hah. If they get uppity we'll orchestrate another war and give them a jolly good thrashing, just like daddsy waddsy did."
"I've got a better idea, Chap."
"What's that, Hah?"
"I think WE should get the money from taxes we put on THEM."
"We do, Hah. We do. Your uncle builds bombs that are never going to be used. My uncle builds schools that teach idiocy. Both our families make millions out of that racket."
"I mean aside from all that. I mean, what if one day they get hold of the money by winning an election?"
"*snort* You are in a funny mood, Hah. I mean, first they'd need to have a man IN the election, and to do that..."
"Well, it happened in Russia."
"What? What happened in Russia, Hah?"
"The reds got their man inside, Chap. As you jolly well know. And look at the mess."
"Well, they pay their interest. Dear Vladimir was hardly a stranger to the Berlin bourse, Hah. Let's not get carried away by the popular fantasy about the bolsheviks. They're all our customers, you know. We aim to please and ..."
"Yes yes, but even so, I;m troubled by the damned insolence of the working chaps, Chap. It troubles me."
"i think you just need another drink, Hah. A drink and a smoke, what what? Hey hey?"
"Don't what what me, hey hey. I know what I;m abut here, and I'm about protecting the heritage of this country. Of Europe."
"You mean our money?"
"Our money is the heritage of Europe, Chap. Don't be obtuse."
"Quiet so, quiet so. What is your idea then, Hah? Spit it out man."
"we need to have a play. We need to wear the robes of christ and thrill the idle minds of the seething idiot mass, chap."
"Jolly good. I like a bit of theatre. I shall be the conquering..."
"Shut up chap, I haven't finished. We need to become christlike."
"Well. I mean, rightho!"
"We need to be the victims, Chap. We need to be poor and christlike in our suffering."
"We need to be poor, did you say? And how would that come to pass, do you think?"
"Don;t fret, Chap. i'm talking about the THEATRE. The ruse, old man."
"So we wouldn't be actually poor, then?"
"Are you daft, Chap?"
"Well. Carry on, Hah, I'm intrigued. Where's my drink?"
"We need to cast ourselves as the struggling peasant farmers, and protectors of the sugar beet."
"The what?"
"Sugar beets, Chap. You grow thousands of tonnes of them."
"I do?"
"Yes. You grandfather planted out the west district and the've been used in government rationing for the poor ever since."
"Jolly good, Hah. Jolly good. Are they worth much, these sugar loafs?"
"Sugar beets, chap, beets. No, they're a rotten useless vegetable, but they grow in appalling soil, and you can make sugar from them. But it's a fools game, because it is about twenty times cheaper to buy cane sugar from India or Brazil. Nobody would do it at all if the government wasn't buying the things."
"God bless the government, then. Jolly good, what what?"
"And hey hey, chap. But it isn;t enough, chap, it isn;t enough by far. That tax money is our money, we ought to have the lot."
"More, you mean."
"Our heritage, Chap."
"Heritage, yes, Hah, I see your point. And how?"
"How?"
"How do we get the lot, Hah? The moolah. The lucre. The .."
"Well we've put together a club of decent sorts to hammer out a deal."
"Jolly good work, Hah. Splendid."
"Rather a lot of foreigners, I'm afraid, but that is how it is these days. We need the continentals on side so that it doesn't stink of a put up job."
"Oh, I'm OK with foreginers, Hah. Mumsy was a Dane, and her papa was a greek Prince, after all. The heaten peril starts in Brixton, as far as I'm concerned."
"Well jolly good and right ho then, Chap. I'll bring you along to our next meeting. You can take a seat on the board, if you want."
"Are you nominating me then, Hah? Well you know I'm not much good at speeches and such like. Prefer to sit back on cheer my man on from the shadows, you know. A bit shy, you know."
"Oh, don;t worry. It's only the right sort of people, chap. No commoners or nosey parkers allowed, you know. We're meeting in Rome, and Brian's uncle runs the police there and they know how to give nosey parker journalists a jolly good thrashing if they get to close to our business, what what? It'll all be good clean fun, chap. All the top party men are there, and we wont say a thing until the dress rehearsals are perfect."
"And we'll be the poor christlike needy chaps, and who will be the rich scoundrels?"
"The workers in the factories, of course. Earning their CURRENCY!!! HAHAHA!"
"My word, Hah, you are bold. But isn;t it a bit much? I mean, we own ALL THE LAND. Nobody will ever believe we're poor farmers. I like it Hah, but it's jut too bold."
"They'll believe it, Chap, just you watch and see. They'll believe anything."
"Not anything, Hah."
"They believe the Pope has Jesus in his sock drawer and that the creator made Betty Battenburg to reign over us, Chap. They'll believe anything. For two pieces of silver, they'll run into machine gun fire and hack into children with bayonets."
"Good point, Hah. It certainly doesn't pay to over estimate the intellect of the peasants."
"And it doesn't pay to own all the land, either."
"What? What rubbish are you talking now, Hah?"
"Learn your lines, Chap, get into character."
"Oh, I see! yes, quite so. How's this? I'M FEELING JOLLY POOR, HAH. MY BEETS ARE SCARCELY SUGARY."
"WOE IS ME, CHAP. MY PLANTATION WORKERS NEED MY HELP, AND I'VE NOTHING LEFT AFTER THE WAR TO GIVE THEM."
"OH... OH DEAR, HAH. WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?"
"WE NEED MONEY, CHAP. AND LOTS OF IT."
Complain about this comment
DemoThreat,
Dont get ur dander up..heck ..ur a lawyer..you do good work for society:)
Are words necessary?
Complain about this comment
You know what the trouble is? If youre lucky to live so long as 70 years, you look back and you realize,
You spent 19 years sleeping, 5 years going to the bathroom, 7,683 seconds blinking your eyes, and 35 years doing work you hated. All the good things that happened each lasted 1 minute.
So, one day you wake up and wonder "Are all your minutes up?"
Complain about this comment
The problem with trying to kill all the lawyers is the idea to do this thing came from...the "stupified."
So, because, lawyers are smarter... they would run to places the..stupified... would never find.
So, hehehehehe,
but, unfortunately the...stupified...reproduce :)
Oh and no offense a vous et vous.
Complain about this comment
Or is that basically what someone said ...before just previously :)
Its so hard to read all the posts,
why bother, why bother, why bother? And I'm happy,
not depressed.
Complain about this comment
I will leave you good people and go persecute others :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#131. At 6:56pm on 09 Oct 2010, Jean Luc,
I stand corrected about Switzerland but wonder why this contribution does not show in the 2008 financial report as it was signed in 2006. Maybe a nice slush fund has been set up in a Swiss bank to receive it and distribute it to needy (Socialist) EU politicians. Any clues?
Complain about this comment
CBW
I really get the feeling that few read your contributions.
#62 CBW wrote.
´So, yes, I do know the risks entailed in regaining/reallocating 'sovereignty' to the Westminster 'political elite': However, it is my belief the UK and especially English Citizens have a much better chance of attaining a 21st Century Bill of Rights once No.10 & Westminster's occupants are no longer able to conveniently blame the EU and England's Citizens can focus firmly on England's issues.´
A 21st Century BIll of Rights !!!!!!
WHAT SHOULD BE IN IT ???
Again you deliberately explain the WRONG question and plead intellectual superiority to distance yourself from your own statements.
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
Would you kindly explain to CBW the difference between a ´Sovereignty Bill´and a ´Bill of Rights´ --maybe he will listen to you ?
( If you yourself understand the difference)
If not, maybe Marcus will assist us ?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurellius
Where are you buried ?
Complain about this comment
143. At 11:01pm on 09 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
MarcusAurellius
Where are you buried ?
I didn't even realise he was actually dead!
Complain about this comment
#132
"Curiously, this exactly what I suggested you might say, in my post. It was a long lament about the inevitable futility of talking to folks who are dumber than a bag full of hammers."
How bizarre. You write this, knowing full well that the rest of #132 and its big brother in #133 is already in the can as yet another pile of bullshit added to the existing pile. Thats the trouble with people upto their necks in bullshit, all they can smell is bullshit and therefore they think bullshit is the norm. I guess, assuming you have minions at your place of work, the minions fawn around you like you are a God, giving you the delusion of being some superior form of life. Sadly for you, a long, long time before me, you'll be worm food and that will be the world marginally better off than before.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurellius
-- It´s not under me --is it ?
Complain about this comment
I don't do minions, nonsense offramp. Not my style, you understand.
And I wouldn't be so sure you'll live longer than me, either. The only way you could be so incredibly confident is if you are extremely young and you think I'm very old.
Now if that is true, you are guilty of the most incredible and puerile arrogance and conceit.
You are are what CBW would call a brash young whippersnapper. You have no respect for your elders, or your betters.
And yet, curiously, you think you are fit to make inane comments about what is reasonable discourse.
I'd bet a considerable sum of money you're english. Only the english, in my experience, can speak with such conviction about their own intelligence from a position of such remarkably transparent stupidity.
Although some swiss do it, to. It's that feeling of cultural superiority that folks get, isn't it? I belong to such and such a club, therefore I am better than other people.
Well, its a pity.
Complain about this comment
acorn;
"MarcusAurellius
Where are you buried ?"
In your brain. I'm trying to penetrate that thick dense outer layer but I think even the drill the rescuers in that mine in Chile used wouldn't be powerful enough. Perhaps they'll lend it to me to give it a try now that they're done with it.
Complain about this comment
#145 Commonsense_Expressway
---´delusion of being some superior form of life´
I believe that accusation can be more equally distributed --on your side of the fence.
Complain about this comment
dt;
"Only the english, in my experience, can speak with such conviction about their own intelligence from a position of such remarkably transparent stupidity."
hear! hear!
but dt, aren't you forgetting...the French?
Complain about this comment
127. At 4:38pm on 09 Oct 2010, JorgeG1 wrote:
' ...
Again, it is not *my* Schengen. Almost 30 European countries disagree with you. I suggest you take it directly with them. Do not use me as their proxy for your Europhobe vile.'
EUpris:
We know that many people in many "EU" countries did not want the Lisbon Treaty.
The renaming of the treaty was a deliberate, insolent ploy to deny these people the right to a referendum.
It is quite conceivable that a majority of people in these almost thirty countries do not want the Schengen Zone.
It is therefore not right to assert that almost thirty countries disagree with whoever it was.
It could be that only a lying, arrogant, manipulative clique support the Schengen Zone.
The Lisbon Treaty rubbish has shown that representative democracy is not working in the UK or, in general, on the continent.
Re: "Europhobe." I don't know about him, but I do know about me. I am not Europhobe. I am "EU"-phobe because I am Dictatorship-phobe and Arrogance-phobe and Megalomania-phobe and Waste-phobe and Parasite-phobe.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports that the leader of the Bavarian conservatives, the CSU, wanting no more immigration from Turkey or Arab countries. They quote the German magazine Focus.
Complain about this comment
Schengen is unacceptable.
The "EU" is unacceptable.
The Channel Tunnel is unacceptable.
The ECHR is unacceptable.
An "EU"-Army is unacceptable.
Too easy extradition is unacceptable.
"EU"-passports are unacceptable.
The metric system is unacceptable.
GIVE US OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#127. At 4:38pm on 09 Oct 2010, JorgeG1,
Your continued reference to the 'book of revelations' shows me that the revelations as to the inherent corruption, absence of democracy, failing Euro, little EuPhile media manipulation etc, are hitting home and that fooled, manipulated 'philes like you are snarling and snapping like rabid dogs because you now know how you've been fooled, but don't have the courage to admit it.
Complain about this comment
#'142. At 10:50pm on 09 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
I'm not quite sure why you wrote that comment as both CBW and myself well understand the difference, but to be honest until the fine details of the Sovereignty Bill are known and until its been tested in the court cases that will surely follow, none of will know for sure what it is and whether it's worth the paper it's written on.
I'm curious about Hague's "He told the Conservative Party conference that the clause on EU Law would underline "this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo"."
We'll have to see whether what the ECJ think of that, but then 27 judges appointed by political patronage is not a very good sign for reasoned judgement, but more for EU political correctness and political bias. I think we'll have to watch this space on this.
As for rights, well the UK ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, but gained an opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, how valid that opt-out is I don't know and as the two in theory overlap there seems to be a contradiction there as far as the UK is concerned. My own concern is that this is in effect a Bill of Rights, when I consider it should be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, as Rights are held by everybody no matter how lacking those people are in basic responsibility i.e. respecting the rights of others.
Complain about this comment
#153 EUpris
Is certification of mental health necessary for British citizenship ?
Complain about this comment
QOT
Re #142
Are You just unable to read English properly: If so, just admit it & we'll all get along a lot better with You!?
Otherwise, why do You make such dubiously disjointed contributions?
Nowhere on this Blog have I suggested a Bill on Soverignty or a Referendum-lock Bill is the same as a 'Bill of Rights'.
I have written at #4 that a 'Sovereignty' Act & 'Referendum' Act will, ".. be 2 measures in restoring a modicum of Democratic Accountability & Political Self-Determination to the UK.."
And,
in reply to JeanLuc at #62 I wrote, "..UK especially English Citizens have a much better chance of attaining a 21st Century Bill of Rights once No.10 & Westminster's occupants are no longer able to conveniently blame the EU & England's Citizens can focus firmly on England's issues.."
The 2 Acts concerning UK-EU proposed by the Coalition Government in my view may lead to Political-Judicial-Social conditions within the UK/England whereby a future Bill of Rights may be enacted.
The content of such a Bill of Rights would of course be open to the debate & decision by the Free-will expression of UK/England Citizens.
QOT, it is really that simple!
My preferences were such a Bill ever considered: A Devolved Parliament for England; a guarantee English Police & Judiciary may not combine with or be subject to any 'Foreign' Police/Judicary except in undertaking activities outside the borders of England; *Fixed-term* Parliaments (6yrs); *Fixed' with proviso a 51% MP Vote for a GE & automatic dissolution of Parliament, or, 10% of Citizen electorate Petition for automatic Parliament Dissolution; elected 2nd Chamber (7yrs); Monarch to be Head Of State without powers except to achnowledge & enact Dissolution of Parliament at prescribed time & on the MP/Citizen demand; No PM more than 2 consecutive terms; Compulsory General Election Voting for Citizens; Proportional Transferable Vote system: Citizens guaranteed a Referendum on any 'new' International Treaty (no repeat Ref for at least 4yrs); guarantee every Citizens Right irrespective of Gender, Race, Creed to fair, equal, open treatment under-the-law, in the Work-place, in Society & at Home....
Some of that exists & there's a whole lot more that most UK Citizens already have, but it be worth having it placed in one Statute. It could be compulsorily reviewed by a special Committee of MPs, Peers, Academics Citizens & Clergy every 18years (i.e. 3 'Commons' Parliament terms) or so & additions/alterations made according to developments.
QOT, this is in the realm of wishful thinking. However, 2 things are clear in my mind:
1) a Sovereignty Act & a Referendum-lock Act are first steps toward a reinvigorated UK/England 'Democracy'.
2) the removal of the malign & dangerously anti-Democratic EU from all UK/England Political affairs is essential for that new 'Democracy' to have a chance to thrive.
Complain about this comment
EUPris
Re #153
"The 'Channel Tunnel' is "..unacceptable."
What on earth are You talking about!?
A marvellous engineering structure between the British Isles and Continental Europe 'unacceptable'!?
You really must have absolutely no idea how ridiculous that statement reads!
What is the difference between travelling by Train/Car/Coach/Lorry/On-foot via Tunnel or travelling by Ferry/Car/Coach/Lorry/On-foot via the Sea from one side of the Channel to the other (other than speed, time & prices)?
The principle is the same no matter which way the Journey is undertaken.
Maybe You would prefer we all took up the plucky, record-breaking Alison Streeter OBE method & swam each way.
EUPris, sometimes You are so shockingly unimaginative/uninformed You qualify alongside MAII, the Greek & QOT as a disreputable eccentric on this blog.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me to be a 'given' in earlier comments here that the supremacy of parliament was already enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
That is not true. The Bill of Rights asserts the will of parliament above that of the monarch. It makes no such assertion about treaty law probably because the parliamentarians of the time thought it too obvious to enact.
It is also the precursor to some of the US Constitution (including, interestingly, the RKBA), much of which is based on UK constitutional practice in the area of the rights of citizens.
There is a real danger that the supremacy of parliament could pass by default and de facto to the EU over time. Arguably that is what happened to the Royal Prerogative in the UK.
The Bill of Rights merely confirmed it after the blood of the English Civil War (a much underrated event in the history of democracy) had already partly confirmed it and the confusion of the Restoration had made the clarification necessary.
The courts in the UK could cite precedents from the ECJ to support that position. It would be a shift in tradition and usage but that has happened before.
Personally, I am against the enactment of constitutional convention. What can be enacted can be unpicked. Nevertheless, the EU has made for a different and trickier political game than we have been in hitherto.
Complain about this comment
CommonSense_Expressway
Re Your #120 & #145
IMO You are being a tad too kind to the domeciled sage of the Swiss.
After re-reading the unutterably self-indulgent, feebly insincere prognostications at #116, #132, #133 & #147 by DemocThreat I can only state never was so little of consequence to emerge from so much of inconsequence.
Only the pontificating sage writes about 'wanting' to be 'admired' for 'cleverness' etc. by others on this Blog.
Only DT would mention how fantastically 'well paid' he is; a contribution taking equal place with the Greeks' claim to his 'large appendage' as the most unpleasantly meretricious remark on these Blogs in a very long while.
The man's a stand-out psycho-babble advert for feelings of inadequacy posing as someone that matters.
Complain about this comment
#155 Buzet 23
Much like DT, I am very skeptical (sceptical) about any given reasons by any UK government for doing anything along those lines --it will only be to protect the political, financial and social status-qo or benefits of the ruling elite.
There are always two reasons--the ´official´and the ´real´---and as Churchill said ´The truth must be protected with a bodyguard of lies´and this will not be an exception to the rule -- if history is the basis.
Many European countries have had similar histories to Britain however have the ´advantage ´ of revolutions or war which allow a re-thinking or re-modelling of their societies´structure. Britain has not had this ´luxury´, even the loss of the Empire resulted in a consolidation of the status-quo.
Britain is a patchwork of laws and privileges going back hundreds of years --with the average citizen usually the last of importance in their true application and meaning. A ´Bill of Rights´ (or any other rights) with any substance would require a re-writing of many laws ---if they were not to be challenged in the European Courts. This is the nightmare facing the ruling political class.
With the ´glory of the Empire´and similar nationalism being taught in British schools and in the normal British press, it is far more easy to ´Protect the truth´ than in other European countries.
The Sovereignty Bill should be seen as no different a trick on Britons ---British history has few exceptions to disprove the rule.
Complain about this comment
#148 Marcus
Are my roots bothering you ?
-- at least my indigestion is explained.
Complain about this comment
#161
"With the ´glory of the Empire´and similar nationalism being taught in British schools"
This is NOT taught in British schools, not when i was a kid nor is it taught by my wife who's a teacher. How would you know anyway? Another Norman Wisdom moment for you. Your capacity for making things up to suit your own purposes is rapidly becoming as embarrassing as MA2. You dont like the British? Fine, I couldnt care less. But stop the lies. If you dont know the answer, dont post.
Complain about this comment
#160
I think it was probably when he referred to adnauseous as "smart" and started aping the uber-one by calling me "nonsense offramp" and buzet23 "buzzard" ,that the whole thing really nose dived.
Complain about this comment
#157 CBW
Thank you for listing your preferences.
my #161 was sent before I could read #157.
Complain about this comment
#163 Commonsense_expressway
You also don´t remember standing up to sing ´God save the Queen´before your Saturday matinee of ´cowboy and Indian´films ?
Is your wife a sports teacher ?
I read a British school history book from the 50´s --also an old Scout and Cub book.
´Womans own´ was another thing altogether.
Get edumacated before you attack with your pea-shooter.
Complain about this comment
@ 151
"I am Dictatorship-phobe and Arrogance-phobe and Megalomania-phobe and Waste-phobe and Parasite-phobe."
You then must have in your no. 1 hit parade of hatred the British parliament and the Oxbridge clique, because:
- They signed up to the 'Dictatorship' by an act of parliament (the European Communities act, if my understanding is correct, plus the Lisbon Treaty (I would like to know what this Treaty changes, e.g. has anybody been directly affected, is your house gone down in value because of the LT?), the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice Treaty, etc. all part of the 'Dictatorship' and ratified by those at no. 1 in your hate list, the British parliament
- They are arrogant and megalomaniac beyond compare, plus they are wasteful and do a lot of 'parasiting' (remember the expenses saga?)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ buzet
"...because you now know how you've been fooled, but don't have the courage to admit it."
Fooled? You must be the one that has been fooled because your country, whether it is Britain or Belgium, is a member of the EU, despite the fact that you claim to represent a majority who you claim is dead against this 'dictatorship'. I refer you to my post # 167.
Well, you and your majority have been fooled big time...
Complain about this comment
#166 Commonsense_expressway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/10/british-empire-michael-gove-history-teaching
Most of the ´ancient Brit´ contributors probably remember ´the good old days´?
Complain about this comment
democracythreat excellently written as always.
still, I am afraid I'm FOR the beet-root plantations :o))))))))
The thing is Russian docs say things grown in one's natural habitat area are more benefitial for a person than brought over from far away.
Because some silly bacteria in one's intestines got trained processing local produce. The tiny ones got tuned on the local things and are able to effectively extract vitamins for you, minerals or whatever.
Well I don't know. May be influence of Sov. times like "don't even hope to get kiwi-s, cocoa nuts or pine-apples!" :o)), and may be there is really something in the theory "eat local things don't confuse your bacteria" :o)))))
I am a bit at a scientific loss whether this depends on genes inherited from grandma's and great great grand etc... Or is it working within one's life only, like the produce you meet when you are a kid and are growing up.... Didn't look well into the problem! :o)))) forgot.
But just in case I would keep some local thing to chew :o))))
May be, some grass, :o))))) after all :o)))) or tree bark :o))) as bacteria consolation :o)) Since all the rest seems to be imported :o)))))
Complain about this comment
#163
(This is NOT taught in British schools, not when i was a kid nor is it taught by my wife who's a teacher. How would you know anyway?)
I read a British school history book from the 50´s --also an old Scout and Cub book.´
Hahahaha...please stop before I rupture something.
Complain about this comment
Re #161 & #166
QOT wrote, "..with the 'Glory of Empire' and similar nationalism being taught in schools..": This is incorrect.
It reveals yet again Your paucity of knowledge of Great Britain and Your prejudicial attitude marking You as the arch-'Nationalist' in our midst.
QOT - - You well know from previous bouts it is TOTALLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION - - since the introduction of the National Curriculum in the mid-'80s the UK's Imperial past has been relegated to one of the Supplementary Sections of the History taught in English & Welsh schools.
Indeed, in one of the first manifestations and very few advantages of Political Correctness many schools in England & Wales had abandoned that sort of 'Nationalist' History as early as the 1970s. Scotland has always had a separate Education system.
Please provide the articles from the so-called "...normal British press.." that teach British Imperialism: I suspect it is no more than the some UK Publications commemorating key-events & others with stories re-capping former times & people (e.g. Der Spiegel's series on Allied Air Raids or its Hitler's Diaries fiasco; then again, why not the French magazine Historia, or the U.S. Smithsonian's publication..). Believe it or not but around May 10th, June 6th & July 14th, August 1st, November 18th every year France's newspapers run special-edtions/pull-outs on WW1 & WW2 & France and much the same can be found for significant dates in Newspapers, Magazines etc. across the entire European Continent.
Thus, another QOT fabrication bites the dust of reality!
QOT wrote, "..I read a British school history book from the '50s - - also an old Scout & Cub book..".
This has to be a very weak joke: How can QOT expect anyone to take him seriously when he makes allegations about the UK in 2010 based upon his experience from the 1950s England!?
Enough! Enough! The man's lost all sense of proportion & logic.
Complain about this comment
Re: 167. At 1:23pm on 10 Oct 2010, JorgeG1
I broadly agree with you on the contemptible nature of the British parliament. Your views are similar to views I have expressed here and elsewhere.
The British parliament is rubbish.
We don't need a second load of rubbish i.e. the "EU".
As regards the effect of the various "EU" treaties:
We have had continentals gang-rape a girl around here and film it. We have had loads of crime from continentals.
It is not merely that I do not want Schengen. I want out of the "EU".
We do need to reform the political system in the UK which has failed the citizens of the UK so disastrously.
Complain about this comment
#170
What an interesting link. Did you actually read it? Did you understand it? Let me cite a paragraph for you, then compare to it what i wrote in #163.
"When it comes to the failings of the school history syllabus, Gove and Ferguson in fact have a point – and one shared by historians across the political spectrum. The delivery of disconnected gobbets, the fixation on Nazi Germany and the Tudors, the practical EXCLUSION of vital swaths of history INCLUDING EMPIRE"....
How does posting a link about the "EXCLUSION of vital swaths of history INCLUDING EMPIRE", further your assertion that "...the ´glory of the Empire´and similar nationalism being taught in British schools"??? I'll give you a clue..it doesnt...and not only that it actually disproves your point. Thanks for that, you saved me the trouble of digging out the syallabus for you.
Complain about this comment
Re:
158. At 12:02pm on 10 Oct 2010, cool_brush_work
The Channel Tunnel is unacceptable!
It is totally unnecessary. There are these things called ships. They go on top of the water.
Since the Channel Tunnel came into being passenger ships from Felixstowe to Zeebrugge have stopped. The Channel Tunnel appears to have resulted in a reduction in services which I can take advantage of.
The Channel Tunnel is inconvenient for me so I now fly.
By having goods going through that tunnel we have given the French the opportunity to cut off a large part of our trade with ease. British people should try to boycott the Channel Tunnel.
If I used the Channel Tunnel, I would be forced to go through France but I now boycott France, the French language and French goods because of Sarkozy and his Greater European Reich.
The Channel Tunnel is like the "EU", Schengen, and almost anything using the word or prefix "Euro". It is a waste of money. It is a damn nuisance. It is part of the attempt to create a Greater European Reich.
Complain about this comment
#174 EUpris
How many countries has Britain ´raped´and plundered ?
--didn´t you learn that at school ?
Complain about this comment
EUPris
Re #174
You really suffering today, aren't You?
'..gang-rape..' isn't a trait of any peoples anywhere: It is the physical abuse of a female/male by usually other males who are bestial in their attitude to their victim.
Take a rest: You're not doing any good on this Blog at present.
Complain about this comment
158. At 12:02pm on 10 Oct 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"EUPris
Re #153
... A marvellous engineering structure between the British Isles and Continental Europe 'unacceptable'!?
You really must have absolutely no idea how ridiculous that statement reads!
...
EUPris, sometimes You are so shockingly ...uninformed ..."
EUpris:
I have discussed the construction of the Channel Tunnel at some length with an Anglo-Swiss lecturer in engineering who was also a railway fanatic. I used to see him at a railway station just watching the trains.
He was very unimpressed with the Channel Tunnel as a feat of engineering. He said that a tunnel of similar length in Switzerland had cost three times as much because the Swiss had done a proper job.
Remember the fires??
I repeat:
"I have discussed the construction of the Channel Tunnel at some length with an Anglo-Swiss lecturer in engineering who was also a railway fanatic."
Can you say the same for yourself Young Man?
Have you discussed its construction with a qualified engineer interested in railways?
Either way, I am quite definitely not uninformed and you should think more before shooting from the hip with your mouth.
Complain about this comment
EUpris
Re #176
Before I even have a chance to read Your #179 let me just say IMO You are profoundly wrong on those points.
To connect Pres Sarkozy, France cutting of Trade & the Channel Tunnel is ludicrous.
Sarkozy had nothing to do with the Tunnel: A joint UK-France business venture begun when he was just out of shorts.
The loss of a Ferry Service has more to do with the costs of oil/petrol for shipping plus many Britons clearly are not 'inconvenienced' - - Blame Your fellow countrymen as much as the French & every other Foreign traveller using the Tunnel.
Fly if You wish& boycott France if that is Your way; though both seem churlish, but try to remember the prefix "Euro" does NOT appear before any aspect of the Channel Tunnel, not even in French!
Complain about this comment
#173 CBW
The topic of how Nationalism develops and remains within a society ( and how it can be removed) has interested me for many years.
While C_E has an ´education gap´--- one can only assume another source of ´knowledge´of the same 50´s to 80´s education. I do however suspect continuity in one form or another ---much like the oft repeated statement `We are the greatest country in the world´-- no matter who does the claiming and failed school attendance.
-- I assume you do not have this ´gap´ --the results are however are disturbingly similar.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
You will speak to me where others won't. I'm constantly having dreams where the past is redressed through crises,
involving the ex USSR and the USA where most nations end up supporting Russia in the crisis.
And unintelligible after than except people everywhere standing up for Themselves. Isn't that a strange kind of dream at night for a person?
No China, just ex USSR nations vs. USA. Europe even seeking redress for past wrongs.
Then, I have dreams where I'm in the punishment catagory of non whites versus whites in the near future.
See Caucasians have dominated the non Caucasians either through colonialism (ie, exploitation and much slavery type wages) and or capitalistic exploitation.
Therefore, there is no sympathy in this world for slow growing Caucasian economies, even though the world is slated for 4.4 percent growth this year with about 2 percent growth for developed nations.
But, that is a temporary pattern I'm sure. As our currencys are more valuable because of quality produced in the developed nations -- Japan, USA, EU.
Our banks must recover and to do that they have to bulk up and make sure of their solvency before lending...to businesses which then will hire new employees.
But, hence I think, its not "white guilt" its just anxiety for the future that causes my white guilt dreams.
Oh well, C'est triste, mais c'est vrais. I resort to French when I have nothing to say. :))))) Hmmmmmm,
Have a good day:)))
Complain about this comment
@ 174, aka 'The Prisoner'
"As regards the effect of the various "EU" treaties:
We have had continentals gang-rape a girl around here and film it. We have had loads of crime from continentals.
It is not merely that I do not want Schengen. I want out of the "EU"."
You know, this is becoming rather funny... I mean not gang rapes or tragic and repugnant things like that, don’t get me wrong (nor the moderators...).
What is funny is that :
a) Gang rapes by continentals in the UK have nothing to do with Schengen, since the UK is not in Schengen
b) Leaving the EU wouldn't solve these problems, since there are plenty of 'continentals', and of course plenty of Brits, that manage to find their way into non-EU countries, e.g. Russia, Turkey, Switzerland, US, Canada, Australia….
In order to solve the problem of importing foreign continental criminals, you would need to:
a) Leave the EU
b) Ban all travel from continental Europe to the UK, after all, people coming with a British passport might be continental criminals who have applied to the Mosad for a fake British passport. Alternatively I am sure criminals have plenty of other ways to get hold of a fake British passport.
c) Implement mass deportations of continentals already here
d) Build concentration camps to hold continentals before they are deported
e) Repatriate all British criminals abroad back to Britain (to join those already here) as 'continental' countries would obviously want to reciprocate.
You see, leaving the EU wouldn't get you very far...of course it would be a first step to your imaginary world free of continental criminals: A Britain with only British criminals...
That reminds me of something...
British crimes for British criminals...now where did I hear that before?
Complain about this comment
Nonsense offramp #163;
The inconvenient truths I post here may not fit your skewed and badly distorted perception of history and reality nor those of your fellow Eurons and occasionally you may be able to pick away at details which are inaccurate but the sum and substance of them is invariably correct.
The fact is that the United States of America was born from a rejection of the perception of the role of government, of the nature of society, and of a view of life itself that had been accepted universally in Europe but it did not work in the context of the world the American colonists existed in. It was incompatable with their suvival and prosperity. America recieved military aid from France in World War Zero being fought between them and Britain but America would have eventually prevailed against Britain had it taken fifty or a hundred years. The successful Revolution of the American colonists against Britain was the beginning of the end of its empire.
It is also a fact that America invented modern democracy. No other nation of significance has anything remotely like it even today. By contrast, other nations including all of those in Europe are not democracies. They are structurally formulated to protect the interests of a ruling elite in one way or another with no peaceful means for even a majority that feels it wants change to force it. It concentrates power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. The fact that with the stroke of a pen, a single individual Gordon Brown could sign away in the Lisbon Treaty more of what was left of the UK's political sovereignty to Brussels without so much as a discussion in his rubber stamp parliament is proof.
The founding documents of the United States, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights are collectively the single greatest invention in human history. They more than any other factor drove what had been thirteen remote colonies of villages and farms to become a civiliation the likes of which the world has never seen in less than 200 years. No other society or civilization in the history of the world has come remotely close and the gap between the US and the rest of the world in every meaningful way continues to widen. BBC acknowledged this fact on its flawed series "America Age of Empire." BBC used the term empire as do some even in the US because there is no existing or previous paradigm to compare it to. Rome was the closest it could find but that comparison is hardly accurate. It came as no surprise to me that when the EU formulated its own founding documents, it completely ignored the US documents and how they led to its overwhelming success.
It is also a fact that the US invented the modern world as we know it. It did this by both home grown native inventiveness and enterprise and attracting many of the best people from around the world to bring their talents here. It gave them oppportunities and incentives they couldn't possibly have hoped for where they came from.
It is also a fact that the US has done more good for more people around the world by far than any other nation, much of it through voluntary private fuding, much of it unheralded.
You can pick at America's past and present shortcomings and failures just as you can find enough microscopic black dots on an absolutely white sheet of paper to convince yourself it is black but the bottom line doesn't change.
By comparison, Europe is a place in deep trouble from which it will not likely escape. It seems to me it is in an irreversible process of terminal decline, a death spiral.
Complain about this comment
#183 David
That is not exactly true.
The second time you said goodbye, I replied (?) but received no answer(?) -if I remember correctly.
You also have responsibilities --not answering doesn´t mean not reading your contributions --I do !
Would you rather be in a situation of Marcus or myself, with the wolves snapping at your heels ?
Complain about this comment
EUpris
Re #179 etc.
Think You are obsessing on the terms EuroTunnel & EuroStar: They are about the British Isles - rail link - France&Continent - - they are not connected to anything to do with the EUropean Union or EUro-zone.
In 1996 the U.S.A. Society of Civil Engineering recognised & named the Channel Tunnel as 1 of the 7 modern 'Wonders of the World'.
Tunnel was built between 1988-1994.
Tunnel is 31.4miles/50.5Kilometres in length.
Tunnel has longest portion of Under-Sea Tunnel in the World (23.5miles).
Tunnel in 2009 carried 16.1 million Passengers.
Tunnel in 2009 carried 11.2 million tonnes Freight & averages p.a. 15.3 million tonnes since its opening.
Journey Times: London to Paris, 2 hours 15 minutes & London to Brussels 1 hour 51 minutes.
There have been 3 significant Tunnel 'fires', in 1996, 2006 & 2008, but no lives lost.
At present the Tunnel uses France designed TGV Locomotives on British Rail Loading Gauge: Agreement has been made for Germany's Inter-City Express to use the Tunnel.
Personally, I've used the 'Chunnel' a number of times over the years (always with a car) and still use Ferry crossings as well depending on travel needs. My brother works in Ostend, Belgium & has used the Chunnel twice a month for the last decade to commute.
Quite what You & the Swiss Engineer find so objectionable about the Tunnel eludes me?
I seem to recall unfortunate & tragic 'fires' in Tunnels on mainland Europe inc. many victims in vehicles & a ski-lift-shuttle etc. Nothing is foolproof, nothing guaranteed 100% safe, e.g. Moorgate Underground, the Space Shuttle... Your general dislike does not add up.
Complain about this comment
Re #181
".. much like the oft repeated statement 'we are the greatest country in the world'.."
Yes, repeated so often that You will have to forgive me for asking like the UK 'Education' & 'News' Nationalist-scenarios that fell so swiftly by the way-side: What is Your proof for this 'oft repeated' statement as aside from the its jingoistic connotations I cannot ever recall hearing it with regard to Britain in 60 years of my life!
Infact, if we take this Blog as an exemplar, then the adjectival term 'great' never mind 'greatest' would appear to be anathema to one and all who contribute with references to the UK or England.
Complain about this comment
#184
Oh for god's sake change the record, its worn out man. That post is regurgitated hash from every blog for the past 6 months.
Complain about this comment
#187 CBW
If you exclude jingoism -- I agree, there is nothing remaining.
By you denying your education, what fell by the wayside ?
That EUpris and C-E have education gaps --that is your problem --or non-problem, as educational deficiency in Britain appears to have the same effect -primitive nationalism.
Complain about this comment
nonsense offramp
"That post is regurgitated hash from every blog for the past 6 months."
Glad you enjoyed it.
Complain about this comment
#181
"While C_E has an ´education gap´--- one can only assume another source of ´knowledge´of the same 50´s to 80´s education. I do however suspect continuity in one form or another "
I dont understand a word of this pidgin.
"much like the oft repeated statement `We are the greatest country in the world´--"
Once again, another claim that is in fact the polar opposite of reality.
Complain about this comment
#188 Commonsense_expressway
--and the pro-Brits, since time immemorial !
Complain about this comment
#188
Don´t knock Marcus -- he is my fertilizer !
Complain about this comment
#191
The education ´gap´ you have admitted --no knowledge off.
-and you agree that Britain ´is not the greatest country in the world´
--we agree -- just remember the next time you blog.
Complain about this comment
You can tell a lot about a country by whether or not people born there emigrate permanently and where they tend to go. Lots of English accents in the US these days. We've made it too easy IMO by allowing dual citizenship, a very bad mistake. US expats usually go back the the US, they rarely give up their strong affinity to the US for good. Chinese Pakistanis, and others born in terrible places to live one's life emigrate to places like the UK because they can't get to the US. For them it's a case of out of the fire into the frying pan. Some years back BBC reported 10% of native UKers emigrated to other countries permanently. I wonder what its up to now. Those who have gone back for a vist after a long absence often say they hardly recognize the place. It no longer even resembles the England they once knew and left.
Complain about this comment
Re #181, 189, 192, 193, 194
PIFFLE!
Complain about this comment
#161. At 12:23pm on 10 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
"With the ´glory of the Empire´and similar nationalism being taught in British schools"
With reference to being taught in the 50's 60's that is my era, and it was certainly not like that in my primary school and Grammar school.
As for Rights can I ask you something rather more deep, what is the meaning of 'Right'. So far we have referred to it as being more to do with human rights but is it far deeper. Does not a collective body have Rights, Does not a villager have the right to call themselves after their village, and secondly their region or province and after that their country. I may be wrong but many posters here over the last few years have claimed that under UN accords no people can be forced to change Nationality without their express consent. Thus Gibraltairians cannot be forced to be Spanish, the Falklanders Argentinian and so on. Therefore how under UN agreements can the EU have been allowed to contravene our rights and declare us all Europeans and not English, French, Germans, Scots (aaagggh). Anyone have an answer to this?
Complain about this comment
Re #195
"..10% UKers emigrated to other countries permanently.."
Oh really: Now, we've done this one before, too, haven't we MAscaridII?
Is that 10% of 50,000,000 UK? I.e. 5,000,000 per year! Clearly no.
Is it 10% of those who emigrate per annum? Well then, 90% are returning! Clearly no.
Is it 10% of emigrants from the UK since for example 1946? If so, where did the other 90% go?
Or, is this the most likely scenario?
MAscaridII, yet again, got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick and has not the vaguest notion of what 'per cent' of any figure, for any year, or any place.
Ooooh, that's a tough one!
Complain about this comment
#176. At 2:35pm on 10 Oct 2010, EUprisoner209456731
I used to use the tunnel but stopped many years ago and reverted back to the many ferries that operate, they are half the price, so what are you beefing about exactly?
PS, I live in Belgium and go back to the UK several times a year.
Complain about this comment
#195. At 6:36pm on 10 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII
It seems Nato sent the US special forces in to rescue the Scottish lass in Afghanistan, what a mistake, they must have known what would happen. Poor girl, if only the SAS had been there, but then MAII will of course think that this was not yet another US screw up, or collateral damage.
Complain about this comment
cbw, have no fear. For every Englishman or Englishwoman who left the UK, someone has arrived from Pakistan or some other country to replace them and then some.
What can one expect except disbelief of the facts as reported by their own government media from a country where everything is either jolly good or bloody bad?
Complain about this comment
#197 buzet 23
Yes.
I have seen a Russian passport with Citizenship ---Russian --Nationality --German
Also for a Croatian friend (long discussions)-- Citizenship-- Yugoslavia --Nationality --Croatian.
I was also confused.
So everything is OK, Citizenship-- EU --Nationality --British.
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
P.S. The Scots had the problem with (I think) Maggie T.
British passports were given to them with Nationality UK --after the oil was discovered and a cry for independence was heard.
Complain about this comment
buzet23
--or it was --place of birth e.g. Glasgow, UK.
Complain about this comment
acorn brain #162
"Are my roots bothering you ?"
I don't know anything about your roots but since you seem concerned and self conscious about them, here's something that might help you;
http://www.clairol.com/niceneasy/roottouchup/index.jsp
Complain about this comment
#205 Marcus
It´s not Bio
--sorry for tickling you between the ribs !
Complain about this comment
David what's that I don't know bridge over the river Kwai fit :o)))))))))))))
I will take care of your dreams. :o)
Sleep well tonight.
Mummy Russia is on day-watch anyway while you are sleeping :o)
Complain about this comment
Marcus
As Mae West said ´It´s not the men in my life that is important, but the life in my men ´
--- and you appear to be a dead loss.
Complain about this comment
Europrisoner "Since the Channel Tunnel came into being passenger ships from Felixstowe to Zeebrugge have stopped."
I think from Hull to Zeebrugge they still operate. But I agree, Felixstowe always before sounded to me as a ? kind of a hub? shipping/delivery place for many British businesses, don't know how it is now. May be cargo things are on-going, not covered by the tunnel.
Complain about this comment
180. At 3:11pm on 10 Oct 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"EUpris
...
To connect Pres Sarkozy, France cutting of Trade & the Channel Tunnel is ludicrous.
Sarkozy had nothing to do with the Tunnel: A joint UK-France business venture begun when he was just out of shorts. ..."
EUprios: That would maker no difference if he chose to use the Channel Tunnel against us.
"The loss of a Ferry Service has more to do with the costs of oil/petrol for shipping ..."
EUpris: Those costs may well be a factor but the Channel Tunnel is probably another one.
" ...plus many Britons clearly are not 'inconvenienced' ..."
EUpris: I doubt if you really know that. This Brit is inconvenienced. I doubt if I am alone.
" ... try to remember the prefix "Euro" does NOT appear before any aspect of the Channel Tunnel, not even in French!"
EUpris: It is all part of the megalomaniac,integrationist rubbish whatever it calls itself. Brits should boycott the Channel Tunnel.
Complain about this comment
182. At 4:37pm on 10 Oct 2010, David wrote:
"Web Alice,
You will speak to me where others won't. I'm constantly having dreams where the past is redressed through crises, ..."
EUpris: I am trying to defend myself from the latest outbreak of continental megalomania. Roman Empire, Catholic Church, Norman Invasion, Charlemagne, Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Marx and Engels, Papal "Infallibility", Kaiser Bill, Adolph Hitler, "EU".
I believe you thought out loud about the possibility of moving to Norway. Have a holiday in Iceland and tell me if you agree with me - that it is a great place, that the people are gentle and friendly, that there is hardly any crime, that everybody speaks English and, if you are vegetarian, that the vegetarian restaurants in Reykjavik , are great.
Complain about this comment
#210 EUpris
Brits should try walking over ???
How original.
Complain about this comment
184 Homer Simpson writes:
"....become a civiliation the likes of which the world has never seen in less than 200 years. No other society or civilization in the history of the world has come remotely close and the gap between the US and the rest of the world in every meaningful way continues to widen."
He goes on:"It is also a fact that the US has done more good for more people around the world by far than any other nation, much of it through voluntary private fuding, much of it unheralded."
Pity the good old US of A can't do as much for its own citizens as the following report from Orion County makes clear:
"Apparently Tennessee is the Libertarian promised land. South Fulton firefighters stood by and watched an Orion County home burn down because the owners had not paid their $75 fire protection subscription fee. The homeowners offered to pay on the spot, but were refused. The family’s three dogs and a cat died.
Mayor David Crocker said, "if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."
You couldn't make it up! Apparently the brigade hosed down the neighbour's property to stop it catching fire because, as you may have guessed, they had paid the 75 dollars but let the 3 dogs and cat burn to a cinder. Don't you just love it - the land of the free and home of capitalism!
Complain about this comment
161. At 12:23pm on 10 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"...
With the ´glory of the Empire´and similar nationalism being taught in British schools ..."
EUpris: I went to British schools.
I did supply teaching in British schools. I covered for a number of subjects because of my formal qualifications.
They let me cover for Hystory because I am hysterical.
I never saw anything like that which you describe. It appears to be pure fantasy.
For many countries the British Empire was better than that which was there before the Brits got there and better than that which is there now.
Complain about this comment
181. At 3:37pm on 10 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"... Nationalism ..."
EUpris: The "EU" is about nationalism. It wants its own army. It forces Brits to carry its lousy passport. It has a national anthem. It wants a spy service. It has its own hate figure - the USA. Hitler had the Jews. "EU"-lovers have the Americans.
The "EU" is a sick, NATIONALISTIC monster.
It is far more nationalistic than I am.
Complain about this comment
EUprisoner209456731 #214.
"For many countries the British Empire was better than that which was there before.."
"People who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one." (Banksy)
Complain about this comment
199. At 8:00pm on 10 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
"#176. At 2:35pm on 10 Oct 2010, EUprisoner209456731
I used to use the tunnel but stopped many years ago and reverted back to the many ferries that operate, they are half the price, so what are you beefing about exactly?"
EUpris:
1) The Channel Tunnel demonstrates the sick, anti-democratic arrogance of the integrationist mind. The majority of Brits did not want it but got it anyway. We should boycott it as a protest.
2) It damages British shipping. We need the flexibility which those ships offer as the First Falklands War showed.
3) I suspect that it is secretly part-funded by the "EU" which would mean that I am paying for it.
4) The connecting railway line ripped up large parts of Kent.
5) It has damaged my connection possibilities from the East of England.
5) It gives the French the opportunity to cut off a large part of our trade. Another reason to boycott the Channel Tunnel.
Complain about this comment
189. At 5:40pm on 10 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
" ...That EUpris and C-E have education gaps --that is your problem --or non-problem, as educational deficiency in Britain appears to have the same effect -primitive nationalism."
EUpris: Everybody has education gaps. However, I am more educated than most. I have two qualifications from British universities and one from a German university and loads more beside.
You are unable to deal with people who disagree with you so you choose the path of insult.
I am not nationalistic. Hating the "EU" is not about claiming that the UK is perfect or anything like that.
Your "EU" stinks and you try to move the focus of attention to something else because you are in denial.
Complain about this comment
#215 EUpris
--and more sane ?
Complain about this comment
183. At 4:51pm on 10 Oct 2010, JorgeG1 wrote:
" ...What is funny is that :
a) Gang rapes by continentals in the UK have nothing to do with Schengen, since the UK is not in Schengen ..."
EUpris: I do realise that. My point is that we already have too much freedom of movement for criminals without Schengen. We don't need Schengen as well.
" ... Leaving the EU wouldn't solve these problems, since there are plenty of 'continentals', and of course plenty of Brits, that manage to find their way into non-EU countries, e.g. Russia, Turkey, Switzerland, US, Canada, Australia…. ..."
EUpris: It would help. The Australians throw British criminals out as they should. We should throw foreign criminals and scroungers out.
"In order to solve the problem of importing foreign continental criminals, you would need to:
a) Leave the EU"
EUpris: As soon as possible!!!!!!
Today, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" ...Ban all travel from continental Europe to the UK, ..."
EUpris: Silly Jorge!
" ... after all, people coming with a British passport might be continental criminals who have applied to the Mosad for a fake British passport. Alternatively I am sure criminals have plenty of other ways to get hold of a fake British passport. ..."
EUpris: We might need a citizenship data base.
" ... implement mass deportations of continentals already here ..."
EUpris: Silly Boy! Of course not. Mass deportation of foreign criminals - YES! Deport those lovely foreign ladies I have danced with? No way Jose! No way Hose B!
" ... Build concentration camps to hold continentals before they are deported"
EUpris: No! Deport the criminals quickly!
" ... Repatriate all British criminals abroad back to Britain (to join those already here) as 'continental' countries would obviously want to reciprocate."
EUpris: Other countries have the right to throw out British criminals and should do so.
"You see, leaving the EU wouldn't get you very far..."
EUpris: It wouldn't solve every problem but it would be
BLOODY MARVELLOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" ... first step to your imaginary world free of continental criminals: A Britain with only British criminals... "
EUpris: How the hell would you know what I imagine? There would be fewer continental criminals.
A LOT FEWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"That reminds me of something...
British crimes for British criminals...now where did I hear that before?"
EUpris: Don't know! Don't care!
Complain about this comment
TPT, someone should hose you down, you seem to be smoldering with rage. As for me, I wouldn't hose down your trailer even if you had paid the $75 or whatever the equivalent is in your funny money.
Complain about this comment
hi Eupris, QuietOakTree, WebAlice,
Wasn't looking for sympathy, but I do know what you mean... Eu Pris.
I, myself, am not whipping myself for ..whatever.
And Iceland hmmmmm, thank you. Vegetarianism is too much a young person concept for me. But, I do like the idea of healthy eating.
And anyone may speak to me...not wanting pity...oooops and yuk.
But thank you all 3 for answering me. I think its going to be a slow next 10 years for the "Western world."
I read that in the Economist, and they tend to be good in This area.
In other areas, the Guardian is good,
In areas, EU, the BBC does excel (there, for the moderators) :))))
LOL
Complain about this comment
IMHO, lawyers are the hope of the world. It sounds awful.
I remember the newly "BARRED" lawyer at a party 30 years ago, saying "Wow, now I know the law, I can know what to do to make some money in a corrupt way (in a rephrasing of quote)"
But, most lawyers are the ones whom are going to further all our human rights. Everyone has seen the new rights people get through "the Law's" court decisions.
So, I'm for lawyers all the way....its not personal...its business and it's serious business.
:))
Complain about this comment
#223. At 01:38am on 11 Oct 2010, David
Unfortunately the new rights that have been earned for certain people are not merited. I'm not talking about the subject you mentioned earlier of Gay rights which interests you it seems, but rather of rights for known terrorists. One of the problems with lawyers is that the original concept of 'truth and justice' is irrelevant to them, only winning their case (argument) is important. Thus whilst there are many worthy results there are also many unworthy results in the courts. Consequently terrorists are extremely hard to convict or expel since most evidence is circumstantial for criminal cases, and for immigration cases that originally meritorious Human Rights legislation becomes a shield the most despicable hide behind.
Complain about this comment
#217. At 00:02am on 11 Oct 2010, EUprisoner209456731 ,
"1) The Channel Tunnel demonstrates the sick, anti-democratic arrogance of the integrationist mind. The majority of Brits did not want it but got it anyway. We should boycott it as a protest."
I don't recall any in the UK being anti it I'm afraid, just the opposite as it broadened competition.
"2) It damages British shipping. We need the flexibility which those ships offer as the First Falklands War showed."
It broadened the competition and has succeeded in lowering the price of ferry tickets, even though it itself is pricey since its near financial collapse.
"3) I suspect that it is secretly part-funded by the "EU" which would mean that I am paying for it."
The French certainly regard it as a feat of 'French' engineering expertise and paid a lot for it, but then that's more to do with their massive egos than anything else.
4) The connecting railway line ripped up large parts of Kent.
Most of Western Europe has fast trains and whilst land is indeed used for that it is worth the loss since it provides a green alternative to flying and the perpetual ATC strikes.
"5) It has damaged my connection possibilities from the East of England."
That's possible.
"5) It gives the French the opportunity to cut off a large part of our trade. Another reason to boycott the Channel Tunnel."
Actually it has made it harder for French strikers to blockade Calais etc. As has already been seen they (strikers) have been prevented from stopping trains, whereas ports are easy for them to blockade. However, it's a pity the tunnel was not routed to Belgium instead although that would have been a very long tunnel.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
Re #225 & the 'Chunnel'.
Unlike #217, Your's are eminently sensible comments on a mode of transport that is clearly popular with many Britons & foreign travellers.
#217 recalls the era of those limited imaginations who opposed the 'horse-less carriage': And equally doomed to ridicule.
Complain about this comment
Has everyone gone barking mad?
QOT - Britain did not have the luxury of a revolution. Really? What do you call the English Civil War then? A royal garden party? No, what we did not enjoy the 'luxury of' was marching off thousands of people to the guillotine or creating an environment in which Cromwell's successors to cart of millions of people to gulags. That is the legacy of revolution. The people know what they don't want and rise up against it but do not have the faintest idea what to put in it's place. The result is usually chaos and anarchy. The restoration in France only followed a period of madness then a dictatorship not to mention two bloody wars. The English restoration, on the other hand, was made possible by a compromise which secured the supremacy of parliament and paved the way for the second modern democracy in Europe (after the Netherlands).
In support of your outlandish claims regarding the 'ruling elite', you cite history books of the fifties and Woman's Own. You make fatuous and ill-founded statements about Britain which are based on clearly flawed arguments which generally means that you are scrubbing around for evidence to support something which is nothing more than blind prejudice. If you hate us that much, just beggar off and pester someone else.
Who are you anyway? Marcus we know about. He bases his hatred of all things European on an unpleasant experience in a German pub in France and waxes lyrical about us from New Jersey. CBW is a Brit living in Finland, I am a Brit living in Hungary. DT is a lawyer in Switzerland. Who are you to pontificate about the British when you won't tell us from which perspective you so roundly loathe us? We know you are a native English speaker from the vernacular and your spelling of 'skeptical' - unless you are totally dependent on Microsoft for you spelling - tells me you are not British. We know you spent time there and in Germany but that's all we know. Are you afraid if you come right out with it that you might get a taste of your own medicine?
Marcus - I notice you could not resist having a little dig at Hungary's ecological disaster. Absolutely typical. Something threatens the beautiful blue Gulf of Mexico and you are all high and mighty and in a state of high dudgeon. Something threatens the beautiful blue Danube and you think it's funny. The EU becomes involved and it is dismissed either as interference or 'bailing out'. The EU does something useful for once and it still gets stick from all quarters. I can't wait to see what the usual suspects make of it. Perhaps they want to blow up the Channel Tunnel before the red sludge finds its way to Ashford.
Oh then we have all the garbage about fifty quid notes. What the hell is wrong with fifty pound notes that is not wrong with 200 Eur notes? Ah, but then I was forgetting - high denomination notes are a weapon the ruling elite can use to rip off the poor English working classes. They are absolutely splendid in Switzerland. Right, DT?
I give up.
Complain about this comment
#227. At 10:56am on 11 Oct 2010, threnodio_II,
On another point, I've been wondering what is being said in Hungary about the recent disaster, how is it that 50 years of toxic sludge were kept in an ever increasing poisonous lake. I know the original problem was that under USSR/Communist rule such toxic problems were relatively common place in a number of countries but I thought that after the fall of the wall and entry into the EU that these toxic bombs were being cleaned up. Have you heard any comments on this?
PS, re high denomination notes - they are heavily forged it appears and during my time running a pub here I often had North Africans coming in asking me to change 500 Euro notes for 50 Euro notes which I never did. If you are a business then there is too much risk in accepting them. They are also the most heavily used for 'black work', just as the old 10,000 Belgian Franc note was and that particular note, worth about 248 Euro, was the most popular and used note in circulation, lol.
Complain about this comment
threnodious, the toxic waste spill in Humgary which reportedly is as large in volume as the gulf oil spill was is a legacy of the Soviet empire. There are commparable ticking ecological time bombs all over Eastern Europe. This was a government invented disaster on the way to happening. The former Soviet slave colonies have had twenty years since the end of communism to clean it up but they appear to have done nothing. The Gulf spill was the result of a criminally run private company flouting all of our laws. It was part of a pattern which made it a uniquely flagrant violator of our laws and cause of accidents and deaths in the oil industry in America. I am disappointed but hardly surprised that the DOJ has not begun criminal prosecutions yet of those responsible. Most of the oil companies understood after the Exxon Valdez spill that they could not carry on business as usual. All that is except BP.
One of the reasons America doesn't have money for the lavish social safety net Europe has is that it spent a vast fortune to clean up its air and water. Has Western Europe? I wonder. When I lived in Bordeaux, the prospect of sitting in an outdoor cafe was must unpleasant with the stench of gasoline and diesel fumes from cas, trucks, and buses and the traffic noise it was better to eat and drink inside. Too bad, people watching is what those cafes were made for and I've always preferred eating and drinking outdoors anyway.
Complain about this comment
#229. At 11:35am on 11 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII,
I quite agree how nice it is to be able to sit on the terrace of a Cafe over here in Europe and be able to breathe, unfortunately that is not the case in a USA that won't even contemplate the Koyoto Protocol, unlike the EU which has been working on reducing GHG's since it signed up. Note the position of the USA and the per capita reading :-
Top-ten emitters
What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007).[22] The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage of the global total. The second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-capita:
1. China1 – 17%, 5.8
2. United States3 – 16%, 24.1
3. European Union-273 – 11%, 10.6
4. Indonesia2 - 6%, 12.9
5. India – 5%, 2.1
6. Russia3 – 5%, 14.9
7. Brazil – 4%, 10.0
8. Japan3 – 3%, 10.6
9. Canada3 – 2%, 23.2
10. Mexico – 2%, 6.4
Complain about this comment
Buzzard;
"I quite agree how nice it is to be able to sit on the terrace of a Cafe over here in Europe and be able to breathe, unfortunately that is not the case in a USA that won't even contemplate the Koyoto Protocol"
"This is what the British population, calls an elementary education."
Professor Higgins.
Your knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming. Kyoto had to do with the evolving of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a colorless odorless gas found naturally in the atmosphere in quantities of a few hundred parts per million, far below one percent. It has nothing to do with air pollution the US EPA ruling notwithstanding. Saying otherwise is like calling pure water pollution because you have too much of it where you don't want it. Read a book. Learn something that is factual for a change. Throw away those political pamphlets you Eurons get your misinformation from. You propaganda won't work here. You only give me even more reason to feel nothing but utter contempt for Eurons.
Complain about this comment
BTW, buzzard, you might consider this.
US CO2 production-16% of the world's output.
US GDP wealth production-28% of the world's output.
On a cost benefit analysis in this regard the US rates as one of the highest efficiency economies of wealth production versus CO2 production. This despite our harsh climate extremes in most places and the vast distances between different parts of our country, both factors adding to increased energy consumption. On a wealth per capita per CO2 produced basis, on average Americans are 30 to 40 times as efficient as Chinese. BTW, the US is also the world's leading producer of energy from alternative sources and of electricity produced from nuclear power. The French only have the highest percentage based on overall use, not the highest in absolute terms. Stick that in your Euronic view of the world. The Euronic analysis of CO2 per capita is deliberately designed to hide the real facts and skew what it uses for use as anti-American propaganda. One more reason for me to have nothing but contempt for Eurons.
Complain about this comment
EUPrisoner...
No to the metric system?
The metric system! Really? It's the better system.
Complain about this comment
#231. At 12:33pm on 11 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII
Your knowledge of Koyoto is underwhealming, to quote :- The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008–12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline."
PS. Koyoto is a UN protocol and not an EU device to attack the US, what a completely unintelligent stance to propagate.
Complain about this comment
232. At 12:42pm on 11 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
‘US CO2 production-16% of the world's output.
US GDP wealth production-28% of the world's output.’
***********************************
The difference being explained by the fact that printing money does not produce much CO2.
Complain about this comment
MAII,
It seems that news reports are emerging that the Scottish hostage Linda Norgrove was killed not by her kidnappers, but by a grenade thrown by one the the US special forces sent to rescue her. You must feel very proud of yet another friendly fire incident involving your best soldiers, and oh how the UK government must regret allowing the US to do the rescue since they were there and 'knew' the territory.
Yet another disaster pulled from the jaws of victory, your emulation of the French is becoming legendary.
Complain about this comment
Buzet, if you'd prefer to send other troops to a rescue in the future here a very light cavalry, fast as a wind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11511886
Complain about this comment
"Koyoto is a UN protocol".
A failed agreement signed by hypocrites none of which has met its requirements. [check]
BTW. any statics per capita are simply silly. When China's population reaches one and half billion (soon) and India will be not far behind they'll look clean as a whistle.
In comparison to Iceland and Norway. :)
BTW, What % of Global Industrial Output are such big countries as Argentina, Indonesia, Mongolia or Sudan responsible for?
Complain about this comment
"War is deceit" PMK ^^
Announcing it on the global media not so clever mind...
Complain about this comment
#237. At 2:04pm on 11 Oct 2010, powermeerkat,
Sounds perfect for the US military, they can use their wind to blow them up and then relax with a splif to recover, that way there won't be any danger to other forces from friendly fire.
Complain about this comment
Red #240
Buzet, I don't know how old you are, but I personally remember quite a few incidents when American troops came under "friendly fire".
E.g. during the Korean War.
[You may wanna do some research yourself]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well, here we go again. Absolutely nothing wrong with my #242 whatsoever. I'm done with this site. Cheerio.
Complain about this comment
My sympathies to the family of Linda Norgrove.
Ms Norgrove's death in whatever circumstances is a deep tragedy.
I'm quite sure the U.S. troops involved were risking their lives & would have done anything in their power to have avoided this awful outcome.
Equally, I would hope those brave armed forces personnel of any NATO nation involved in such actions will not be deterred by the carping & criticism levelled at this moment by people who are not in 'Harms Way', still less have any idea of the enormous difficuties & risks such tasks involve.
Complain about this comment
CommonSense_Expressway
Re "..cheerio.." due to insufferable CENSORSHIP by Moderators.
A great pity.
The BBC Moderation process is at times so wildly contradictory & utterly implausible that I'm unsure if there is a single regular contributor who has not suffered this ridiculous intervention at some stage of a debate.
Thus, in my experience, the Moderation passes & publishes a direct comment referring to the Soham Child Murderer & censors my comment about the death of a soldier in Northern Ireland.
As another illustration of this totally haphazard process: DemocThreat made comments about Jews (no opbjection to his view being published), but then Moderators prevented publication of a later comment by me which without embellishment Quoted DemocThreats' comment!
So it goes on... A disgraceful infringement of the Right to Free Speech on a Publicly Owned Broadcasting Service that owes its very existence to the Citizens it then denies the Right to be heard/read/seen!
Complain about this comment
#228 - Buzet23
Actually, the Hungarians away from the disaster area seem somewhat sanguine about it. There has been the predictable outpouring of sympathy for the victims and appropriate charity fund raising but the consensus seems to be that the government are handling it rather well working round the clock to build a containment barrier and making all the right noises about massive penalties for those responsible. We are all basically holding our breath to see if the containment barrier will be ready before the existing damn gives way altogether.
For once, MAII is right. Eastern Europe is full of Soviet legacy ecological disasters waiting to happen. Shame he has to go and spoil it all with his customary anti-European spleen.
The reason it has not all been put right in the last 20 years, Marcus, is very simple. Money. Yes, billions have been pumped into the east during this time but that was primarily to stimulate the economies, not to clean up the legacy. The sad truth is that disasters such as this are unpredictable. One day, we will get round to it is the philosophy. It is not until the disaster actually happens that the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments begins and by then, of course, it is too late. I see, however, that the business is being temporarily nationalised and the chief executive has been arrested. Hungary actually has a good track record in this area. Not far from there at Tatabanya, and old soviet style city founded almost entirely on the now defunct coal mining industry is blossoming as a centre of hi-tech industry. Shades of Sheffield in the seventies. All that having been said, what do you actually do with 700,000 cubic metres of toxic sludge? Stick in a space shuttle and send it into deep space (assuming it ever got off the ground)?
Marcus.
Most European cities have had extensive pedestrianisation programs and it is perfectly possible to find good terrace watering holes with good clean air to breathe. As for your predictable rant against BP, in my experience the usual reason why prosecutors do not bring criminal actions is because they don't have a case. Forgive me for being old fashioned but I thought people were innocent until proven otherwise. Clearly your view is rather more conditioned by the lynch mob mentality. You won't forget to hang a few Transocean and Halliburton people as well - just in case - will you? Then there is that pesky Asian shipyard which built the rig. A nuke should take care of that shouldn't, it Marcus?
Complain about this comment
#245 - cool_brush_work
Did you hear the one about the Roman emperor who got the sack and had to claim benefit? When he arrived at the dole office, there were two queues.
"Which queue for redundant emperors?", he asked.
"Near queue, Marcus"
Just as well it was not the other one.
Let's see what the censors make of that one.
Complain about this comment
#243 Commonsense_expressway
Promises, promises, promises.
Complain about this comment
#244. At 6:20pm on 11 Oct 2010, cool_brush_work
It's not a question of criticism by us not in harms way but rather why was a killer munition such as a grenade used in such a hostage situation (if proven). Normally if the SAS are anything to go by (Iran embassy) it would have been a stun grenade, I am therefore minded to remember my late RAF bomber command father who said that when the US bombers were practising the safest place was on the target. It seems that the poor lass met a wannabe rambo.
#243. At 6:07pm on 11 Oct 2010, commonsense_expressway,
Don't give up, it just shows that the PC BBC have won, just rephrase it using all the obscure words you can find so that the filter fails.
#241. At 4:41pm on 11 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Under Korean war on Wikipedia when searching friendly fire this is the only incident, what would you like to say now?
Korean War
On September 23, 1950, Hill 282 was attacked by 1st Battalion, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, part of the British 27th Brigade in the United Nations force. Having captured it and facing strong North Korean counter-attacks, the Argylls, devoid of artillery support, called in an allied air-strike. A group of F-51 Mustangs of U.S. Air Force's 18th Fighter Bomber Wing circled the hill. The Argylls had laid down yellow air-recognition panels correctly in accordance with that day's planning, but the North Koreans imitated similar panels on their own positions in white. The Mustangs, confused by the panels, mistakenly napalm-bombed and strafed the Argylls’ hill-top positions. Despite a desperate counter-attack by the Argylls to regain the hill, during which Major Kenny Muir was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross, the Argylls, much reduced in numbers, were forced to relinquish the position. Over 60 of the Argylls’ casualties were caused by the friendly air-strike.
Complain about this comment
#227 Threnodio
Haven´t I already accused you of snobbishness ?
Now the Microsoft dictionary is not good enough for you.?
For your information -- complain to Apple or Marcus.
Complain about this comment
#227 Threnodio
You are correct --I did not consider the recent English civil war (1642-1651), however I am amazed that you used it as an example to disprove my point and then forcibly state it led to Democracy in England, proving my point.
Yes, I do dislike such British claims that 300 years old is modern -- even when I allow you some wiggle-room.
Complain about this comment
251. At 9:53pm on 11 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
". . .however I am amazed that you used it as an example to disprove my point and then forcibly state it led to Democracy in England, proving my point".
Your point was very explicit - England had not had "the luxury of a revolution". You were wrong. It is is a simple as that.
The establishment of the principle of the supremacy of parliament was one of the most fundamental steps in the formulation of the British constitution. If you wish to argue that no society is free to describe itself as democratic until it has universal suffrage, I will agree that 1928 was leaving it a bit late - but not as late as Russia (1936) or France (1946), those hotbeds of revolutionary fervor. Do I take it that 1789 and the outbreak of the French revolution is modern by your definition? Where is your cut of point?
As to your 'snobbery' remark - perfectly justified. I would not have it otherwise. As to Microsoft's dictionary, I would say much the same as I do of the Independent - your should not believe everything you read in them.
Are you ever going to answer my question?
Complain about this comment
#227 Threnodio
Has any of the Brit ex-pats looked at at the differences in prices for passport re-newal in the countries where they live, compared with Britain or Ireland ?
Now that is something the European Courts could be useful for.
They are really sucking their EU citizens dry - 161 EUROS !!! for the privilege of leaving Britain !
(payment only by card)
Complain about this comment
#253. At 10:49pm on 11 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
So it seems you are using the consular service to renew your passport, which is based in Paris, as that is the price of their service (161 Euros), well done, you are therefore supporting French employees, their lifestyle and Sarko will award you the Légion d'honneur (maybe). If however you had renewed your passport in the UK so that you COULD leave the UK, it would only have cost you £77.50 and you would not have been funding the French, rofl.
Complain about this comment
#252 Threnodio
I found the question why I hate Britain rather childish. I look at and judge societies different than you do because (to repeat) of my living in three for many years and use all travels to learn as much as I can about the societies visited.
Was it you who asked for my `credentials´---if you wish a list of visited countries, I will grudgingly divulge.
I still follow the politics of some countries and visit or communicate with the friends I made --even in Britain. You will be surprised how few pointed questions at locals are required to make some worthwhile findings.
At university I had some good professors to knock my primitive nationalism out of me --that is also a luxury not everyone has had.
Britain just does not come at the top of the list for me -- neither does America --but I am sure we can all consider Marcus a real trustworthy friend ?
Complain about this comment
Buzzard and other Eurons, I prefer to wait until the investigation and the facts are reported rather than rely on rumors.
Looks like nonsense offramp has exited the highway for the last time or so he says, his route having lead him to a dead end. I always felt he took a wrong turn... mostly to the left. He'll be missed....like a drop of water removed from the Pacific Ocean.
Complain about this comment
#254 Buzet 23
Sorry for the red-herring!
You gave me the idea when you asked about citizenship and nationality. Threnodio said he was living in Hungary and I had already heard from Brit friends about the ridiculous British passport price. So I did a search for a few countries.
I am flabbergasted at the price gouging of Brits living in the EU --by their own government and country.
Unfortunately it re-inforces my views of Britain.
Complain about this comment
#256 Marcus
Better a dead end --than a dead loss !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #253 & #257
'Expense' of ex-pat British Passport.
What are You talking about?
Having Downloaded on-line the relevant paperwork I completed & forwarded it to the UK Passport Office.
10 days later I opted to travel down to the Helsinki & collected my new one.
The cost in 2008 was £70-00; it was a simple task & the price compared favourably with those of my Finnish wife, Belge & Australian relatives.
UK Consul Staff were admirably helpful & efficient.
For me, the most arduous task was getting in & out the Electronic barriers of the Consular Offices in Helsinki - - still, at least our FO is ensuring no lapse in 'security' - - most encouraging.
Having checked today, I find £77-50 hardly out of step with any other Nation.
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
If your knowledge of wars, including Korean one is based on Wikipedia alone - I'll refrain from any comment.
Ditto re your RAF bomber pilot father's remarks.
I'm sure than he and his fellow pilots being highly competent (unlike USAF ones) managed to find a bomb Dresden all right.
[a remarkable achievement to truly be proud of]
Complain about this comment
#253 - quietoaktree
Curiously, yes because mine is about to expire. CBW is correct - 77.50 GBP although we Hungarian residents get ours from the consular office in Dusseldorf. Quite why I am bothering, I don't know. I have a nice little card which cost me nothing with which I can travel anywhere within Schengen and I have no plans to go to the UK at present.
Complain about this comment
#262. At 08:36am on 12 Oct 2010, threnodio_II
#257. At 00:07am on 12 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
It may have been a red herring for you QOT but it is an interesting question, the last time I need to renew my UK passport was in 2006 and at that time the price was marginally higher than renewing in the UK and the embassy in Brussels did the renewal. It now seems that since McClown was in power(or maybe Bliar) they have centralised the consulate service and doubled the price, probably under the excuse of the then forthcoming biometric passports. I have listed the two centres below and who they cover and for ThrenodioII, they both charge 161 Euro. I think it may be better to renew it by post in the UK. Also, you mention you have a card, is that a carte de sejour, as if so that does not replace a passport and is just proof of residence. These days I have a Belgian identity card as I was given Belgian nationality so I won't be needing a UK passport again.
The Paris consulate which charges 161 Euro is available to British nationals in Belgium, Egypt, France, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Syria, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Yemen.
The Dusseldorf consulate is based in the British Consulate-General in Düsseldorf, Germany and provide passport services for all customers in Germany, and Armenia, Austria , Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina , Bulgaria , Croatia , Czech Republic , Denmark (Faroe Islands & Greenland), Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary , Iceland,Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kosovo , Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia , Moldova , Montenegro , Norway ,Oman, Poland , Qatar, Romania , Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia , Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia , Sweden , Turkey, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan .
Complain about this comment
#261. At 08:10am on 12 Oct 2010, powermeerkat,
The bombing of Dresden was not friendly fire you might recall, a big difference from fragging the person you were sent to rescue. So keep on refraining from comment as whilst wikipedia is not the definitive article it is a good quick reference point.
Complain about this comment
#263 Buzet 23
By card, I mean methods of payment.
The list you gave does not include Ireland --an EU country.
http://britishembassyinireland.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/passports/fees
The plot thickens --and so does the discrimination in both price calculation and methods of payment. If Granny does not have a credit or debit card --she will be thrown out of mainland Europe --or she is imprisoned in Europe (lack of valid identification) ?
The BIC and IBAN codes are insufficient for European payments ?
The mathematics appear also to be of a questionable level on the Irish site. (€1.26) ?
Is this British discrimination against its own citizens Kosher ?
Complain about this comment
#259 Marcus
-- you naughty boy !
-- Acorns to the rescue --Marcus has fallen in action !
Complain about this comment
#265. At 12:01pm on 12 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
They can also use Bank draft which is certainly available in all the countries I know.
As for BIC and IBAN codes I think you'll find that most UK banks are in the process of implementing IBAN codes and still work in the days of basic Swift or Eurotransfer money transfers. Give them a few more years and they might be there, although at least one old building society can work with them.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by discrimination in price calculation as Ireland is 161 Euro just as all the rest, although the rate of 1:1.26 is a bit high but then that applies to the other centres as well I guess.
As for the government attacking their ex-pats, I'm not surprised as this was a Nu-Labour policy, it's typical Socialist vengeance on those daring to leave their Socialist paradise and give their taxes to a different country.
Complain about this comment
#267 Buzet 23
`A the process management of passport applications is outsourced to a company called Abtran For passport enquiries in Germany they can be reached on 0900 1700 661. Calls cost €1.79 cent per minute from landlines and approx €1.99 cent from mobiles. There is a normal rate number which will get you direct into the Consulate: 0211 9448 226 but you will often find they will refer you back to Abtran. You can lso email Abtran at ukpassportservicegermany@abtran.com or the Consulate at Consular.Section.Duesseldorf@fco.gov.uk
http://ukingermany.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/passports/passport-fees
--No bank draft --- and what about Granny on mainland Europe ?
Complain about this comment
Buzet, your original comment was really beneath you.
Just as mine would be if I had suggested what you did, if an American hostage died during a rescue mission conducted by a British commando.
And that you've made such a comment before all the facts were in (they still aren't), implies that you just wanted to score a cheap point.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
I love your statistics and your writing. But, I get these great impressions of the USA from you, through your use of statistics...please do you use a yearly almanac or...?
what is the site, ...not questionining your credibility.
And QOT,
Stick to WW! through today when doing history. You said you knew about THAT history, so I do think your historical memory is best served there. And I'm not really critical of you, because you are ok :))))
Um Buzet,
I agree, but in these times, it has become fashionable to question our justice system ....by "super patriots" American "right or wrong"
Well, lawyers WILL help when America is wrong about jailing some people. But, I do agree that terrorists are to be avoided at all costs, no doubt.
and our system supported (sorry Marcus) (THIS year by China (whom else would one borrow money from-EU?) so I do believe Obama is doing a great job by letting in the law from the US courts system to try criminals.
Unfortunately there are 100+ people whom no nation will take from the Quantanomo Bay (sp incorrect) place.
David
Complain about this comment
#270 David
I appreciate your comments --but I do try to allow wiggle-room when a general idea is presented. The problems of slavery, deportation, subjugation and colonization etc. are conveniently diverted --by minor statements which somehow reminds me of Holocaust denial. I blame Mr Hewitt as he is well aware of his clientele and should be aware of the still existing strong British social divisions -- which are at least equal (worse) than the monotonous examples of other EU countries he presents for discussion.
Complain about this comment
QOT,
Yes im familiar with your politics--agree as per USA, if not your opinions on the EU
much luck to you on your life and own daily happinesess.
David
Complain about this comment
All,
Im so sick of "EU this and that":)
Mr Hewitt,
are you a propronent of the European Union?
Otherwise, why are all your articles about IT?
How about a nation by nation description of economics and politics currently:)????????
And there could be forecasts and whether commenters agree, disagree, but there is MORE to the UK and the European continent than THE EU.
And how can you not cater to those local nations getting a much wider audience in the process from each nation
Even Other sites Do this, why not you...Europe...there is no Europe here, just EU, and anti EU posters
?????
Complain about this comment
#268. At 1:52pm on 12 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
Maybe it's time to investigate which Nu-Labour supporter is linked to that company called Abtran, there must be someone from their track record.
As for Granny, in Belgium Bank Drafts are still possible, I don't know about elsewhere.
#269. At 2:26pm on 12 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Sorry but you're right, it is a bit early but then so were your previous comments, my fear is that in so many friendly fire incidents the US military has refused to release crucial evidence and the personnel involved have almost never given evidence. What confidence should anyone have that Obama's inquiry will not be just another whitewash.
Complain about this comment
#273. At 6:33pm on 12 Oct 2010, David
David, this is primarily a political blog, thus the EU, Euro et al is the primary topic, day to day life, what my dog or cat has eaten, what colour I'm painting my room today etc is outside the scope. As you rightly say there are many other blogs (like facebook) that cater for that, but this blog rightly or wrongly concentrates on political issues. Have fun, I hope.
Complain about this comment
#274 Buzet 23
Belgium is handled in Paris -- and other methods of payment are allowed.
http://ukinfrance.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/passports/passport-fees1
Granny can only be got rid off from the list of countries dealt with by Duesseldorf -- the different payment methods are very strange.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0714/breaking62.html
http://www.abtran.com/index.jsp?aID=262&nID=95&pID=93
The picture is becoming clearer -- Sovereignty for the British government, is the right to outsource government jobs.
Complain about this comment
Well, Buzet,
I do think you are wrong as its primarily an argumentative blog.
And you do most of the arguing, but without rancor, i must admit.
But, the EU is a power in the world much like the UN is, a money taker and and money giver....very important.
So, its Important.
And I'll say ANYTHING that the moderators let me say and say to myself, well, if someone does not like it ..
I'm soooo sorry (as in kind of)
IF this was a historical blog or a support group for EU victims, I could understand your perspective.
But, supposedly, its a blog on Europe, NOT the EU or the Euro.
I understand your reluctance to think of this as personal...and guess what? I, myself, do not either think of this as a personal record of MY life or important as a sounding board nor
will i get huffy over personal "attacks," because like everyone else, **"I like you, but I like me, better."**
But, it IS interesting for the different political viewpoints. And you're viewpoint is interesting as are others' political viewpoints.
But, your viewpoint is NOT THE " Rule of Thumb" for others' approach to this blog. And neither are the other members' viewpoints of Your Regime beyond reproach.
Thank you,
David
Complain about this comment
Look, Buzet,
at the lack of alternative viewpoints, recently.
One commenter, here, even went so far as to create their own blog for viewpoints that were uninteresting to the "prominent" commenters on This blog.
I wonder, wonder, why that person would do such a thing :)))
Complain about this comment
sorry, Buzet, out of sorts...will be better some other time..for comments..u know ..just feeling tired:)
Complain about this comment
Where IS Marcus?
I worry 'bout old(er) people when they disappear..if only temporarily
:)
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry wrote:
"For the life of me (and I know I can be quite ignorant about some things), I can't figure out why the UK is so afraid of Brussels. Pardon me for pointing this out but it wasn't Brussels that practically bankrupted the United Kingdom. It was the UK's old pal, the United States of America with its loose financial regulations and gambling investment banks that allowed the UK to be knotted into bundled derivatives while other American investors were likely credit defaulting swaps against your precious sovereignty."
How does "allowed the UK" translate into America being responsible for any financial decisions the UK made?? You scold the UK for wanting to protect its sovereignty but then you suggest it doesn't exist by blaming America for the UK's financial problems. Which is it? Does it exist or does it not?
How can you logically argue against its sovereignty by also arguing, critically, that it doesn't exist and then going further to suggest that it gives up its sovereignty, anyway, to an undemocratic union?
You can't argue the wrongness of something while at the same time using it as a justification to do the same thing. It isn't logical.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote:
"that's comparing apples and oranges though, a better comparison might be the recent kerfuffle re Arizona's immigration law -- where's their sovereignty?"
Though I agree with Arizona's efforts to stop the invasion from the south the European Union is NOT a country like America. Like you said, apples and oranges.
Complain about this comment
commonsense_expressway wrote:
"In the interests of completeness, and in the context of the assertion of MA2 that Europe is not creative or inventive, and has no influence on the modern world, the countries that make up the now EU have won 430 (ish) Nobel prizes."
Oh stop it. The EU is NOT a country, America obviously is. The only way any European country can outdo America is by trying to hoodwink and force the citizens of countries in Europe to become a country. It's a sham.
"One quarter of the 320 "Americans" who won Nobel Prizes were European born, raised and educated."
Where did most of their accomplishments take place? Where were their ideas allowed to flourish? Why did they choose to come to America and more importantly why did they choose to become Americans? All important questions.
"Despite this the US is still the number one Nobel nation, except in literature. So I suppose, in ethnic terms, 240 Americans have won Nobel prizes and over 500 Europeans."
LOL, spoken like a truly desperate Europhile.
"Make of that what you will ,all those who think Europe uncreative and stifled by tyrannical dictatorship."
In many European countries you can go to jail for simply expressing your own opinion. I would certainly call that tyrannical.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote:
#252 Threnodio
I found the question why I hate Britain rather childish. I look at and judge societies different than you do because (to repeat) of my living in three for many years and use all travels to learn as much as I can about the societies visited.
Was it you who asked for my `credentials´---if you wish a list of visited countries, I will grudgingly divulge.
I still follow the politics of some countries and visit or communicate with the friends I made --even in Britain. You will be surprised how few pointed questions at locals are required to make some worthwhile findings.
"At university I had some good professors to knock my primitive nationalism out of me --that is also a luxury not everyone has had."
It isn't the job of any university professor to "knock" anything "out of" you. I wouldn't call such professors "good" or professional.
"Britain just does not come at the top of the list for me -- neither does America --but I am sure we can all consider Marcus a real trustworthy friend?"
As opposed to letting everyone else decide for themselves?
It appears those professors really did have an influence on you. Sad.
Complain about this comment
Allen T2,
I don't know of any bank which was ever forced to buy risky derivatives or issue poorly secured or unsecured loans, nor have I ever heard of anybody having a gun put to his/her head in order to force them to assume a mortgage they clearly couldn't afford.
Has anybody?
Complain about this comment
#276. At 9:16pm on 12 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
So the plot thickens, Abtran is an Irish company and also handles passport applications for several other countries including Germany, Italy and Ireland. I wonder how all these countries ensure that the correct security checks are made as we all know about outsourcing, especially myself as I worked through it in IT for many years. It has inherent risks in that the company concerned is merely interested in maximising profit, hence probably the high cost for a passport now. Secondly the civil servants who used to do the job are probably still employed and theoretically supervising the outsourcing company, in between their holidays, training courses and sick leave.
Complain about this comment
#278. At 02:28am on 13 Oct 2010, David
Alice is not the only one here to have their own blog David althought Alice's Russian blog is not hers, at least one other started his own blog at one time when his posts kept getting censored.
You're right that theoretically this is about Europe, but don't forget 27 of the European countries are now the EU so the preoccupation has got to be the EU and all its edifices. As for the non-EU European countries they do get mentioned, especially by our Alice, by rarely by Gavin Hewitt or his predecessor Mark.
Complain about this comment
283. At 08:32am on 13 Oct 2010, AllenT2 wrote:
commonsense_expressway wrote:
"In the interests of completeness, and in the context of the assertion of MA2 that Europe is not creative or inventive, and has no influence on the modern world, the countries that make up the now EU have won 430 (ish) Nobel prizes."
Oh stop it. The EU is NOT a country, America obviously is. The only way any European country can outdo America is by trying to hoodwink and force the citizens of countries in Europe to become a country. It's a sham.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen, although I'm glad to see someone putting a counter argument to 'expressway' there, (they have posted so many times and so quickly that if they talked that frantically in person they would be taken off in a straight jacket)it does seem odd that you frequently point out the EU is not a country. Although of course you are technically correct it isn't really valid. The posters that you are replying to have never really asserted that Europe is a country. The EU is however an entity with political control over the countries and their people. So the fact that it is a confederated entity of cooperating nation states instead of a federated nation of states if largely irrelevant.
Also you point out that you believe the only way EU states can compete is by hoodwinking and forcing it's people into it. Also that this is a sham???? Really? So there is nobody in the Europe that is pro European integration? Is it just the some kind of patriotism takes a kick in the teeth that the future of the US's hegemony doesn't look so rosy when you see the rise of countries like China and India coupled with the notion that Europe may one day become a federation?
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
That was a nice comment...and thank you for that info.
Complain about this comment
#288. At 09:25am on 13 Oct 2010, nothins_ever_easy
You talk about the current EU being a confederation amid the notion that it will become a federation, yet ridicule the notion that many (not all) of the EU population are being hoodwinked into a federation and that the difference between the two is irrelevant. By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:
(1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
(2) Decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
(3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.
Therefore as you can see from this excerpt from wikwpedia there are fundamental differences especially since the federation becomes the sovereign body and the member states just regions, e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Canada etc. This is why so many of us here are anti the integration idea that converts a relatively loose confederation into a stifling sovereign federation of dubious political benevolence.
Complain about this comment
290. At 10:23am on 13 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
#288. At 09:25am on 13 Oct 2010, nothins_ever_easy
You talk about the current EU being a confederation amid the notion that it will become a federation, yet ridicule the notion that many (not all) of the EU population are being hoodwinked into a federation and that the difference between the two is irrelevant. By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:
(1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
(2) Decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
(3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.
Therefore as you can see from this excerpt from wikwpedia there are fundamental differences especially since the federation becomes the sovereign body and the member states just regions, e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Canada etc. This is why so many of us here are anti the integration idea that converts a relatively loose confederation into a stifling sovereign federation of dubious political benevolence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Buzet but you missed the point there. I agree with what you are saying almost entirely. I was simply pointing out to Allen that he has often said to others in his posts that they aren't right in what they say because there is no such country as Europe when they never claimed there was and that although it has nothing to do with the point believes it makes a difference.
I recently read a post on the terror level in Europe and he went off on a poser as they said "we Europeans are used to......." and he replied along the lines of how could you there is no such country as Europe. The poster never clamed there was. Just stated that people across Europe had dealt with it for a while. They were clearly referring to Europeans in geographic terms. Do you see what I mean?
Complain about this comment
#285. At 09:02am on 13 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
"nor have I ever heard of anybody having a gun put to his/her head in order to force them to assume a mortgage they clearly couldn't afford.
Has anybody?"
Er, I'm not sure how to say this but if you are or have been married, have you not realised that the word No does not exist in a wife's dictionary when concerning the nest she wants to bring up your children in. It may not be a physical gun but boy is it explosive.
Complain about this comment
#291. At 11:14am on 13 Oct 2010, nothins_ever_easy,
I see what you mean, in this case the whole subject about federation/confederation is somewhat emotive and almost takes over as the single issue that surrounds all else. Whereas in fact even if the 'ever closer union' concept leading to federation was abandoned, as it should be, the oppressive over regulation and protectionism would still exist regrettably. Anyway I think your point was that some posters go off on tangents sometimes, linking subjects or points to a post that were not the point of the post or mentioned in the post.
Complain about this comment
#286 Buzet 23
The way I see it, is the high prices are due to the British government wanting to make money from the British ex-pats all over the world --and do no work for it. Abtrans are allowed to charge what they want for telephone calls, postage etc. and also get a percentage of the booty.
Although the EU- Brits may have a case at the EU Courts for discrimination, if Germany, Italy and other Abtran users charge lower and identical passport fees for their ex-pats.
Complain about this comment
293. At 12:05pm on 13 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
#291. At 11:14am on 13 Oct 2010, nothins_ever_easy,
I see what you mean, in this case the whole subject about federation/confederation is somewhat emotive and almost takes over as the single issue that surrounds all else. Whereas in fact even if the 'ever closer union' concept leading to federation was abandoned, as it should be, the oppressive over regulation and protectionism would still exist regrettably. Anyway I think your point was that some posters go off on tangents sometimes, linking subjects or points to a post that were not the point of the post or mentioned in the post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Buzet,
Yes that was more what I was gunning at. In itself a little off topic and so hypocritical but I had to say it, sorry!!
Just a point you made there which I think is a good one, that if we were to abandon the march toward a 'United States of Europe' that we would still be left with all the oppressive over regulation and protectionism is right. One of the main problems with EU federalisation is not that people are being tricked or forced to accept it as such, but that it does seem that if the EU tries to bring something in, encroaching on a nations sovereignty, then there are only 2 outcomes;
1. The people accept it, so it happens
2. The people say no, it is then shelved until it comes back at a later date, and this is repeated until it is accepted.
I'd like there to be a way of cutting down and streamlining the bureaucracy. Yes we can vote to give the EU control over something, but I’d like stronger mechanisms whereby EU control can be cut back if the people deem that it has gone too far.
As is, it seems EU expansion into various aspects of member nations is on a ratchet. It can only go one way! Constantly gaining and never reversing once it has gone too far!
Complain about this comment
#284 AllenT2
I did not want to spend my life re-inventing the wheel --as some bloggers are forced to do.
So I considered superior arguments to my childish nationalism at the time --and tried to find evidence (for or against) by traveling.
--as I said --a luxury, which I am thankful for.
Complain about this comment
#294. At 12:31pm on 13 Oct 2010, quietoaktree,
I'm not quite sure if there would be grounds for a court case but who knows, the price is certainly well out of order and someone is making a lot of dosh out of it I guess. As our friend DT keeps saying lets see who the owners [of Abtran] are, maybe some stones need to be turned.
Complain about this comment
#295. At 12:34pm on 13 Oct 2010, nothins_ever_easy
I could not agree more with your last paragraph, it's what I've thought for a very long while so lets hope there is a reverse gear soon.
Complain about this comment
It is the nature of bureaucratic systems that its members rise to the level of their incompetence whether on a national or EU level.
More than one country (political party) has probably also used EU positions (elected or un-elected) to rid itself of ´undesirables´.
I see little hope for democratic change within the EU --one can only hope that not too much damage is done --until the new batch of incompetents replace them from their respective countries.
Complain about this comment
#299
Source - Murphy´s Law
Complain about this comment
David, Buzet is right, the chatter place isn't mine. And if were I'd have it closed up ASAP anyway - fed up with the place !!!
And yes here it's politics. With deviations :o) that I'm taking care of :o)
And there it's kitchen talk! no perfection anywhere :o(.
One other stray thing created by a local here that Buzet has mentioned can be found if you google at once "Woland blog Alice". It ain't very popular as you'll see :o) but the man who created the place was awful kind. to me :o)
I am thinking I will retreat there and rest there for a while
Complain about this comment
Awww precious Alice, Buzet is ok. I am just EU'ed out.
LOLOLOLOL.
Complain about this comment
WA,
I did look up that Woland, etc... on Google, and didnt find the right blog. But, it IS a popular search term ..Woland...means devil's disciple--tongue in cheek? Wow, a nice place for me :))))
That is so cute:O)))
Complain about this comment
David, your orientation abilities are even exceeding mine! ;o)
Here it is
http://korovievschoir.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
tyyyyy:) WA
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS