UK Future

[BigShot]

Bigshot. Yep! The other hijacked term is 'diversity', most of its supporters have no time or respect for any who display different views, ie, their support for diversity extends only to those who agree with them.
Not my understanding of the word.

Roy.

I've always liked "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." by Voltaire (but not really).

I feel you're quite right in your view of the matter, and it's a shame.

For a pale, weakly flavoured taste of liberty one need only go wild camping (preferably with a responsibly built fire) in England, and then head north of the border and try it again. The difference a little freedom makes is truly beautiful and brings life to the soul. I have a hard time believing that people of a clearly illiberal bent have ever felt freedom and compared it to the reality of life in this country.

As for the approved-diversity and free-to-agree nature of modern day liberalism, the following quote, though about an entirely different subject, seems appropriate.
"You are free to do what we tell you!" - Bill Hicks.

 

[Jacob]

What is this about? Do you have any links?

Thank you Jacob, you have now confirmed what many of us thought. You don't have to know what you are talking about to disagree!.....

I've been going on what you have said so far, which wasn't a lot.
So are you going to fill in the details or not?

 

[Digit]

This, Bigshot, from the LIBERAL ELITE, exactly expresses my philosophy....

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Few people will shed any tears for the “historian” David Irving, jailed in Austria for three years yesterday, having been found guilty of Holocaust denial – a criminal offence under Austrian law. I certainly won’t.

But is it right that someone should be imprisoned for their opinion, regardless of how vile and abhorrent we might find it? Isn’t this the price of freedom of speech: that we have to tolerate the views of extremist, lying, Nazi-sympathising scum like Irving?

If freedom of speech means the right to publish cartoons that upset Muslims, it is also the right of idiots like Irving to publish his “research” arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were a fallacy. (Although he has since revised his opinion of this, apparently. In the light of “new evidence”, he now accepts that they did exist after all. What a formidable researcher.)

Whilst I can understand why a country like Austria would be sensitive about its own part in the Nazi atrocities, it seems counter-productive to me to enforce this law. I hadn’t heard a thing about Irving since he lost a court case in 2000 to Deborah Lipstadt, who first accused him of Holocaust denial. Today he’s on the front page of virtually every newspaper in Britain, possibly Europe. Now he can claim martyrdom and will become a cause célèbre to every dunderhead on the far right.

I think Ms Lipstadt summed it up best: “He should have been met by the sound of one hand clapping. The one thing he deserves, he really deserves, is obscurity.”
Posted by Citizen Sane at 4:36 PM

THAT is liberalism.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

So are you going to fill in the details or not?

No Jacob, I am not. If you are too narrow minded to read opinions other than those expressed by your personal hymn sheet please do not expect me to it for you. By sticking to your comfort zone you are like someone attempting to understand Darwinism by studying the Old Testament.
Most, if not all newspapers have science correspondents, it is reasonable to assume that they are all as equally qualified to comment as each other, that being so their views, whether we agree with them or not, are equally valid.
Thus if you wish to broaden you views I suggest you diversify your reading.
There are few absolutes in life but of two I am certain.
1 Where there is a divergence of opinions they cannot all be right.
2 Where there is a divergence of opinions they can all be wrong.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

What a load of waffle! Nobody is threatening anybodies right to free speech; just being a bit rude about it in a democratic sort of way. We are all grownups here I thought.
Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves. :roll:

 

[Digit]

Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves.

I already have if you read my posts.

Roy.

 

[Modernist]

Back to Cameron

It is woeful that half the population has been misinformed by the press to the point of believing many of the mis-truths, so frequently peddled to those who either cannot or can't be bothered to find out the facts for themselves, and consequently adopting an anti -European stance, even in the face of blinding logic to the contrary.

of DC

>>I was reminded of Lord Cardigan returning from the charge of the Light Brigade, explaining to the remaining troops how he had given those Russkies a lesson they wouldn't forget in a hurry.<< :lol: :lol:

Orwell

>> "The insularity of the English, their refusal to take foreigners seriously, is a folly that has to be paid for very heavily from time to time."<< so true

 

[WoodMangler]

Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves.

I already have if you read my posts.
Roy.

Try offering a précis, I can't figure out what you're on about either...

 

[Digit]

Woodmangler. It wasn't even on this thread and has no relevance what so ever to this thread, why Jacob chooses to go on about it I don't know.

Modernist. They don't understand us either.

Roy.

 

[BigShot]

Modernist - I've refrained from addressing your comments so far, but since you've brought them up again I'll bite.

I don't read ANY newspapers, what I do read I get online from diverse sources (including the mainstream media) and generally look behind the stories to see the studies, laws and theories they are based upon.

With that said, I'm completely anti-EU and not out of any kind of xenophobia (I used to live and work in France for starters).

The implication in your posts that anyone who has bothered to pay attention would be pro-EU is bordering on the offensive.
The EU is a cesspit of corruption where our elected representatives have (get this) NO real power (their words, not mine, and I can post the part of my email exchange that led to that nugget of information coming my way from a serving MEP).

If I woke up in the morning to headlines proclaiming that our politicians had a change of heart, had left the EU and were negotiating new trade and movement treaties "as we speak"... I would not stop jumping for joy for most of the day... and it's not because I don't understand the issues. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Modernist]

Modernist - I've refrained from addressing your comments so far, but since you've brought them up again I'll bite.

I don't read ANY newspapers, what I do read I get online from diverse sources (including the mainstream media) and generally look behind the stories to see the studies, laws and theories they are based upon.

With that said, I'm completely anti-EU and not out of any kind of xenophobia (I used to live and work in France for starters).

The implication in your posts that anyone who has bothered to pay attention would be pro-EU is bordering on the offensive.
The EU is a cesspit of corruption where our elected representatives have (get this) NO real power (their words, not mine, and I can post the part of my email exchange that led to that nugget of information coming my way from a serving MEP).

If I woke up in the morning to headlines proclaiming that our politicians had a change of heart, had left the EU and were negotiating new trade and movement treaties "as we speak"... I would not stop jumping for joy for most of the day... and it's not because I don't understand the issues. Quite the opposite in fact.

Don't feel obliged to respond - I shan't be offended - or do so as you like - after all it is my thread.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anywhere free of political corruption but that was not the point of the thread. I have made plenty of comments on that in the past.

The point is that to isolate the country from the decision making process in Europe whilst existing in a global market and as a tiny island off the mainland is simply insane. The reasons for it are well documented and, as ever, it is a lot easier to criticise Europe than to create a more prosperous economy here. In my experience there is widespread ignorance of European life in the UK and we are therefore vulnerable to the waves of propaganda pumped out in the so called popular press. It is a modern incarnation of the human trend to find someone to blame or criticise, often to excuse inadequacies closer to home.

I am no fan of German food, it is true, however they will shortly have the largest car manufacturing industry in the world characterised by excellent designs, high investment, efficient production, high prices, high wages, excellent working conditions, comprehensive social services, high taxes and high standard of living. The industry earns billions for the economy.

Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example rather than being an irritating and now irrelevant annoyance in Europe for the past 30 years.

 

[Digit]

Politicians Bigshot. Let's take a look at what happened over the week end and during the run up to it.
Mrs Merkal wanted a full blown treaty and had stated so.
Sarkosy wanted to avoid ratification, and stated so.
DC wanted to look after a British institution.
Now unless they were all living a troglodyte existance they all knew each other's position.
Sarkosy stated before they met that DC's concerns would not even be discussed. He new that meant that DC would use the veto or back down, was he gambling or was there a deeper cause?
Sky net reported that certain sections of the French press stated that Sarkosy 'played' DC.
In other words he used DC to defeat the German's wishes as a treaty requires all to agree.
So why would he do that?
He is facing an election in ...March? and was playing to his voters etc same as DC.
Why would Sarkosy wish to avoid a treaty, probably because getting all member states to ratify such a treaty is likely to be impossible.
Merkal knows that as well, so why would she want a treaty? She also is facing an election soon and the German constitution will not permit her to enable a treaty without ratification. The obvious reason for her view, not necessarily the correct one of course, is that she does not want the responsibilty of a refusal.
A further point that is generally ignored is that the Council meeting decided nothing in detail, that is left to others to work out before presentation.
Next point, as I understand it the agreement that was reached was to establish a legal framework for control of debts etc.
Please note that it seems not to have addressed in any way how to deal with the Eurozone's current indebtedness.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example

Perhaps you should ask Italy that same question. It was reported on TV some time ago that it takes Fiat 23 times more man hours to manufacture a car that a Toyota worker requires for a similar model.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Woodmangler. It wasn't even on this thread and has no relevance what so ever to this thread, why Jacob chooses to go on about it I don't know.....
Roy.

Cos you keep going on about it - dropping dark hints about Grainuid bias etc. Maybe it isn't so interesting in the cold light of day?

 

[Modernist]

Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example

Perhaps you should ask Italy that same question. It was reported on TV some time ago that it takes Fiat 23 times more man hours to manufacture a car that a Toyota worker requires for a similar model.

Roy.

Hardly the best example of European car industry, but better, I suppose, than Leyland et al. How about the plight of the once mighty Saab or Volvo?

We may be ignoring the fact that colder countries tend to be more industrious than the warm or hot.

 

[BigShot]

Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example rather than being an irritating and now irrelevant annoyance in Europe for the past 30 years.

I quite agree. My uncle (from another EU country - I'm a half-breed) once commented on the problem a long time ago while repairing an already-repaired exhaust on an Opel.
"A good German car with a lump of British s*** welded under it."
That was 20 years ago. We certainly need to follow their example somehow, but not by satying in or getting deeper into the EU.

Germany's success comes through an awesome work ethic and massive efficiency. Neither of which are watch words of British car manufacture (or indeed, British culture).

Maybe we should follow their example, but I'll leave it to you to figure out how best to achieve that with one caveat - being ruled by a foreign government over which we have practically no control isn't necessary in the answer.


It is not fundamentally necessary to be involved in the decision making process in Europe. They need us more than we need them when it comes to trade, and when it comes to non-trade (criminal justice, education, defence, immigration - which I'm all for - and so on) we frankly do NOT need to be part of a supranational government.

 

[Digit]

The Guardian biased Jacob? Good God no! At least no more than any other of course.
Brian, I doubt that the IMF etc cares a great deal about regional climate when lending.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

They need us more than we need them

A further fact, Britain is the second largest contributer to the EU coffers, a point conveniently ignore by some sections of the German press.

Roy.

 

[MIGNAL]

The UK is the fourth largest contributor, behind Germany, France and Italy. That's why it's ignored by all of the German press.

 

[Digit]

My information came from Sky news...

The BBC says....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... jw&cad=rja

... once again the answer seems to depend on who you ask. Either way if our contributions ceased the EU would notice it. Third, fourth, tenth, it's a devil a lot of cash!

Roy.