Well - here's the start of a new thread,as suggested!
It seems that in recent months, more or less since the start of the Euro currency crisis, it has actually become acceptable, to the mainstream, to discuss Britain's position within the European Union.
No longer is it akin to heresy to argue that the whole European project, from the very start, has really been about the creation of a European Federal State, encompassing not just free trade, but a true political union of the differing Nation States involved.
As you know, I am a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party ( I shall be standing in the forthcoming Council elections next May !) which believes that membership of the E.U. was not only achieved by outright lying to the British public in the only referendum held on the subject, [It's just a free trade area, folks - remember?] but also that continued membership is incompatible with our elected representatives actually being able to make decisions in the interests of the country.
There are people who take the opposite view, namely that the E.U. is the only way forward: others feel uncomfortable with the lack of independence allowed, but are afraid that exit will damage the country.
I think that this issue is of great importance to the U.K. and that open debate is to be encouraged.
This is a forum composed of people with wildly differing views on this, as well as other, subjects, but if we can manage to refrain from personal insults (difficult when passions are high!) I do not think it inappropriate that discussion should take place.
Over to you!
|
|
Got your blazer cleaned and ready to go? :-)
Last edited by: FoR on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 19:09
|
|
Stay in I reckon - perhaps with a different deal - the 2,000,000 cars we make in the UK every year have to go somewhere. None of this federal crap anyway especially on lawmaking and defence.
|
>> Stay in I reckon - perhaps with a different deal -
You'r not getting a different deal, the Europeans have had enough of the special negotiating, you stay in under the current terms and hope opt out of any new laws or you leave. As far as the "laws" go, I think you'll find we have more problems with our own home grown "human rights" bewigged idiots, than anything that comes out of the European court.
To leave is economic death.
|
15% of all UK tax revenues come from the City of London which is THE leading financial centre in Europe.
It is also the world leading centre for trading in the Euro..
Now if we leave the EC, it is highly unlikely that the EC would allow that to continue. In fact I would say that it is 100% certain it would not: Frankfurt would probably become the new centre.
And as a result the UK would see a pretty major reduction in its tax revenues.
Now I would expect any party advocating withdrawal to address this major issue and explain how they will regain the lost revenues -or cut expenditure.
Surprisingly, UKIP don't mention it..
So in other words they are either ignorant that there is a high probability of it happening or conveniently forget to mention it.
When times get hard people look for an easy option which will solve all their problems. These people tend to have a rosy tinged view of life as it was and unrealistic expectations of what their chosen course will achieve..
After all, there are two major Japanese car makers in the UK many of whose cars go to the EC: Toyota and Honda. Does anyone seriously think they will continue to invest in the UK once we have left the EC? Remember Toyota decided not to invest in the 1990s and built the new Yaris in France...
These are not insults or yah-boo politics but major issues which UKIP have not addressed.
So I treat them as a party whose leaders are incapable of successfully making the change they want to make without a major economic upset.
Last edited by: madf on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 19:34
|
The Germans and the Dutch are certainly interested in a watered down version
|
|
Germany and The Netherlands are the ones saying STFU or get out.
|
|
The Dutch where linked to the German Mark ten years before the Euro came into force.A port like Rotterdam depends on Germany.When the Euro arrived in Holland it shocked me visiting family how prices had shot up.The Germans are P/off paying for the Greeks and Italians that is why they want a watered down version.Joining the EEC was never going to be only a trade agreement in my opinion.I do think we deserve a referendum and let the people of this Island once and for all decide either to be in or out the EU.
|
I think leave. The EU is a vehicle to bring about a European State and I dont think that is were the future lies, I think that international alliances are more productive than merging countries.
The Eurozone is a declining market, the Far East/S.America is where it is happening and no doubt Africa will have its day, possibly within my lifetime - China is not moving into Africa for no good reason.
I am naturally suspicious of increasingly large, remote institutions presiding over peoples lives and I favour a return to more regional power including futher devolution in the UK and more power devolved more locally than it currently is.
The sort of people who have come to occupy the EU institutions seem too comfortable turning the other way from the suffering in the deprived parts of the Union and while many will call for reform, I view that as a call for lunatics to run their asylum better - it is not realistic to expect people who have a comfortable and protected existance to be able to rock their own boat, most wont.
The Euozone crisis has served to demonstrate the lack of political will that exists to sort problems out, summit after summit when one or two should have brought decisive action, a perfect demonstration of why such large institutions often fail to serve the people who rely on them. The Greek crisis, on the ground, has continued year after year and the failure to resolve this and other financial and social problems that are looming shows to me there is a moral deficit among the people with real power, simply not the kind of people I want controlling so much as a light switch in the UK.
I dont believe the economic impact will be utter destruction, I recall the same people said that about the Euro and few of them have had the guts to admit they got it wrong then, so ive no doubt those very same people are well worth ignoring now.
I dont hate Europe of European culture, infact I certainly embrace much of the German culture in my own life because I was raised with it and I consider the political institution that is the EU is entirely separate from the people and places of Europe - I do wish in the debate people would separate these two things as the political system and its failings are not the fault of the citizens and cultures of Europe but the small political elite that designed and run it.
Sadly too often the political institution is attributed directly to the people of Europe, a cynical attempt to use them as a human shield for the few thousand people are are really to blame and should be held more accountable.
|
>>I think that this issue is of great importance to the U.K. and that open debate is to be encouraged.
I think that Europe, immigration etc. etc. is all a red herring.
If the UK was governed properly, then Europe & immigration wouldn't be particularly relevant.
The benefit system, including health, gives the UK a huge problem that it either cannot afford, or which it is not prepared to afford. However, even having said that, the UK *wants* to have a public health and benefits system.
What one should do then is work out what benefits system you wish to have and who you wish to benefit from it.
Let us say that to benefit from the NHS one must have made £10,000 NI contributions yourself, or have someone who has made such contributions prepared to sign them over to you. (please don't get hung up on the amount of source). NI Contributions could be made as a reward. i.e. Gurkha war hero gets £10,00 NI contributions made on his behalf by Armed Forces and instantly gains access to UK benefit system.
We would then exclude anybody who had not contributed. Whilst that would include Johnny Foreigner coming here to sponge, it would also nail lazy_bastard with_1,000_kids.
Any foreigner who was coming here with either a job, loads of money, or with no need/wish possibility to access our benefits system, then surely they would all be welcome as they would represent a benefit to the UK (criminals to one side, who should all be drop kicked).
The problem is that to do that you need to have a courageous government supported by its people.
If you can be hounded out by the press because someone said you called a policeman a pleb, or because you;re shagging your secretary, or because whatever, then that doesn't work.
Then you have a government which is focused on not pee-ing people off.
Which is what we have, and have had for 50 years that I know about.
What the government do that is good or reasonable has no value. What the government do that outrages the popular media and its readership is of devastating relevance.
Let us say that Farage got in with a majority. Restricting immigration would not improve the situation, he'd need to get rid of border staff, embassy staff would need massively increasing, cheap labour would enter shortage so minimum wages would rise... etc etc etc.
And he'd be out having been ejected by an outraged electorate when all he actually did was exactly what he said he would do.
So, until the electorate is prepared to understand what he's voting for, accept the implications of what he's voting for, and stand up and be measured then its all academic.
However, even though intelligent people tried to do what they thought was right, they sadly failed, but in this case they will have left behind the impression that immigration, and therefore immigrants, are bad.
The tick, ignorant and stupid will come along fresh from the latest copy of the Sunday Sport and now champion the cause that foreign is bad.
Then because everybody is suffering a bandwagon develops...
etc. etc. etc.
Long and tiresome note - distilled -
One simply needs to pass and implement laws governing our own citizens, insist those rules apply to immigrants and visitors, problem goes away.
example; ask Pat, You do not need to make special rules for foreign truck drivers, you just need them to adhere to the same rules and regs that the UK truck drivers have to.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 20:17
|
|
I don't know how much you know about the current Government benefits' reforms Mark but they are certainly peeing a lot of people off at the moment.
|
I don't know much, to be honest. However, they will be trying not to pee off the people they expect to vote for them and trying to appease those that they think will.
Trying to do the right thing will be secondary. And not secondary because the current crop are evil, but secondary because that is their only chance for survival.
And I benefit from Conservative appeasement and only ever suffer from Labour appeasement.
|
>>The problem is that to do that you need to have a courageous government supported by its people.<<
The problem with the benefits culture is that it has now been extended so far, across so many people that it has created a dependant population and true to human nature, few people will vote to give themselves less - benefits are easy to give, politically difficult to take away.
Inflation is compounding the need for benefits and precious little constructive action has been taken to try and reduce the cost of living for the low paid and out of work - if you reduce their bills, you reduce their need for state aid. I certainly dont believe the current system for energy provision and housing is going to make it easy to justify pulling back benefits so far more on the supply side needs to be done.
|
|
Price of private rentals are rocketing now because of the Mortgage crunch - Housing Benefit will not keep pace, link that to the "bedroom tax" and capping, some people may have to look for work ! Job Seekers Allowance is being sanctioned from between 6weeks to 3 years depending on what you may not have complied - they reckon that 40% of claimants are being pulled out of the old Incapacity Benefits by "failing" medical assessments. Council Tax benefits are being pruned back, the Disability Living Allowance will disappear to be replaced with an allowance that will be assessed and cut back anyway...Housing Benefits are being paid direct to claimants in the run up to Universal Credits - and guess how that is going to be spent (clue: not on rents)...
|
I care, i want out.
No point in arguing the case though as the only party that offers an in/out binding referendum is UKIP, and whilst the ever more indebted country can borrow increasing amounts to stave off the day of judgement, The Party will continue to bribe selective sections as needed day by day to secure the staus quo.
That may end sooner than they expect when the interest and inflation capsule busts, hence the floating of selling off the roads and other desperate ''give us a quid for a cup o' tea mister'' ruses floated by Mr Slippery, where else can they get the money bar selling their own or rather our grannies.
The Party will not offer an in out vote, there will be weasel worded statements similar to the alternative voting system charade, that the easily led mainstream media brainwashed tribal voter will assume to be a genuine referendum when in fact they'll be voting for anything but.
If there was such a thing as a 'we want out' vote under The Party then like Ireland it would be ignored and with minor alterations to the wording held again until the correct vote was recorded.
I'm under no illusions that UKIP will ever hold power, it may take 20 years before it holds the balance of power as the Lib small cheek does presently (but not for long eh..;) though i expect that day to come, if that day approaches i fully expect the dirty tricks dept of TP to use increasingly dirty trickery against UKIP or whoever is independent in their desperation to cling to power.
By the way when i refer to The Party, i of course mean the three cheeks of the same backside party that is the lib lab con.
|
Some good reading FM2.What I don't follow is why this debate is ongoing about immigration.The immigration problem was always going to happen the German government at the time the Brits wanted to enlarge the EU warned about these problems.It's obvious anybody living in a poor or poorer country will try to move to a better place.That happened in Holland when Spanish workers came and joined the Dutch merchant fleet.The requirement was that they had to learn the Duch language in two years.They got payed the same salary as the local workers.
British governments decide what health servive we have or how much state pension people recieve.Junior doctors not having to work god knows how many hrs a week or a minimum wage must be a good thing.We have to many job losses at the moment and people are scared.Who's fault is that?The financial crisis hasn't done us any good we are all suffering except the rich.Regarding foreign truck drivers let the UK government drop the taxes on fuel and have a equal playing field.
|
>>What I don't follow is why this debate is ongoing about immigration
I think that it happens because essentially its easier. Well, that and the fact that the UK is naturally jingoistic (which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing or at least not entirely so, its just a thing).
To over simplify, blaming the foreigner is socially acceptable for the most part. Try blaming mass producing unemployed git and you'll either find you have some goody-goody pinning you down or you;ll find that you;re related to them.
One of the things that Cameron said early in his stint was that its "all about direction of travel".
That comment alone makes him worthy of attention.
to explain;
nobody said or decided that the UK should be run by Health and Safety concerns. However, because we had an environment of fear and do-gooding, H&S was seen as safe, not H&S was seen as risky. Therefore our direction of travel was to have more H&S and look where we are now.
One does not need to get rid of all H&E regs. One merely needs to make them less welcome and within a few years we have less.
If you know a publican, a good one, ask him how he changes his clientele when he takes over a pub. He doesn't want to ban anyone. What he does is make sure he's polite and welcoming to the clientele he wants, and less friendly to those he does not.
Without controversy he will end up with the audience he wants.
That is called direction of travel.
So rather than solving the country's problems in one go, all we need to do is commence and encourage a direction of travel which leans towards the society we want.
however, that has a negative potential also. If the direction of travel is started along the "Foreign is bad route" it won't be going anywhere good.
|
|
I don't know about no blaming of the mass employed gits, seems they come in for some flack and not a small amount either.
|
But what is the point if the direction of travel creates more poverty taking peoples benefits away won't be the answer to our problems.We have far to many families on the breadline in my opinion.I have seen in this area job after job disappearing.Tory or Labour I don't think there is a sheet paper between them.
We can't turn the clock back but was it that good?
|
|
Divorces are rarely pleasant and always expensive. Be careful what you wish for. Those who want to part company with Europe are perhaps just as naive as those Scots who want to separate from the UK. Like it or not we are almost inextricably economically linked now for good or ill, but be sure of one thing, we'd miss Europe a whole lot more than they would miss us. It's tough enough now to sell British goods in Europe, add further complications and they'll just not bother buying them at all. They don't like us much as it is.
|
As Humph. Loose talk about alliances with growing economies: there is no chance that former colonies or emergent major powers like India and China, or indeed continents like Africa will enter into any meaningful alliance. They hate our guts. Not to mention those of the mohammedan colonial inclination.
Whereas in Europe the UK has real allies, and those who are not bosom pals have respect at least. As for the USA - I've already commented elsewhere on those self-interested neo-colonialists. A considerable anti-English sentiment remains. Be careful what we throw away in the fantasy of empire recalled. A strategy involving greater reliance on the embrace of enemies and the ambivalent USA as an alternative to what we have now, is risible. We do not count any longer as a power.
|
There are two threads here:
Europe - In. I would rather be in peeing out.....!
Benefits - they are supposed to be a safety net. Now some people seem to be better off than I am whilst on benefits - a bigger TV, a full Sky subscription, holidays etc. and I am earning twice the average wage! Something needs to be done.
|
An interesting Poll was published a few days ago byt he Fabian Society. Whilst it shows a clear overall majority in leaving the EU it also shows that there is a considerable divide between the older and younger generations with the younger part of the population very much in favour of staying in Europe.
A lot of anti-EU noise is generated byt the older half of the population, they are by and large the MPs, the commentators and journalists but we all should remember that this countries future rests with the younger generation and to ignore the views of those that will suffer economically from any rash decision to withdraw from the EU would add insult to injury. They are the generation that will have to deal with the huge economic problems we have landed them with.
www.social-europe.eu/2013/01/new-poll-young-brits-want-to-stay-in-the-eu/
|
>>We have far to many families on the breadline in my opinion.
We do.
But how do you stop that?
You can't keep pouring money, because the poor population will simply expand to fill the space.
You have to make certain choices unattractive;
so, if one is unemployed, one needs to make having a child a seriously bad idea. Not so bad that the ones who do have a child end up facing physical harm, but certainly unpleasant.
If one is unemployed, life needs to be seriously less pleasant than if one is employed.
Looking after your children post divorce needs to be financially easier than not doing so.
etc. etc.
None of which should take away from the need to offer care. But not offering a level of care which makes irresponsibility more pleasant than responsibility.
I know people who would have to take a cut in living standard if they went back to work.
That is not acceptable. It should be a step up in living standard if you work - and that means not working should be less pleasant.
|
>>You have to make certain choices unattractive;
Correct.
|
>>Price of private rentals are rocketing now because of the Mortgage crunch
No, because of shortage of supply. Relaxing lending will only drive up prices.
The majority rented before Margaret Thatcher decided we should be a nation of home owners and flogged off all the social housing. Nothing intrinsically wrong with renting or right with owning.
However, something is certainly rotten in the state of Denmark, i.e. the UK. Housing benefit is enriching conniving landlords and tenants and the taxpayer is being robbed blind.
Back on topic.
The EU is a beggars muddle now. Spain and Greece are imploding because the Euro made them fundamentally uncompetitive. The Euro can't work without a unified fiscal policy which means the Germans subsidising all the other members of the Eurozone to a greater or lesser extent, just as England subsidises Scotland, and will always have to as long as they share a currency.
So that has to be solved, either by the dismantling of the Euro or what amounts to a cession of sovereignty by the Eurozone states and political union 'under' Germany and its allies (France).
The non-Euro states can in theory maintain their own monetary policy, but that leaves you with a fundamentally divided Europe.
All the guff about the economic cost of leaving the EU, Frankfurt taking over from London, Nissan, Toyota and Honda clearing off, the need to negotiate scores of separate trading agreements, is answering the wrong question, i.e. "what happens if we just leave the EU".
The right questions are
1. What are the options for Britain as a non-EU member?
2. What is the best of those options, is it desirable and is it feasible?
3. Will it be better than can be achieved within the EU (a moving target as it tries to solve its problems)?
4. How could we get from here to there if we wanted out?
Only then can the "in or out" question be answered.
To say that "it would be disastrous to resign from the EU" is just our old friend the straw man argument. If I agree with that statement, it does not mean that being independent politically and fiscally of the EU is unattainable - it just means we have to do a few more things than tear up the treaties to make it happen.
Having said all that, leaving the EU is no panacea, and heaping the challenges of leaving on to our present difficulties is very high risk. We have an ample supply of politically correct idiots of our own, and the welfare system is a disastrous handicap in its present form, where businesses are built around milking it and essentially similar minimum subsistence levels apply to the low paid and the "strivers" who are being made fools of.
There is possibly a third way, there's always a third way. The EU is fundamentally unworkable, not just for the UK but for the other 26 states. If we accept that, then the questions become
1. What is the right design for an alliance of European states within a free trade area?
2. Can the EU be recreated to that design with the UK in it?
As for UKIP - it really has no option than to oversimplify its pitch and present a "solution" to capture support. That is disingenuous, but not more so than the other parties trying to get elected.
Unfortunately I think too many of them, including the leadership, believe their own propaganda.
UKIP lacks any real depth - Farage is charismatic, but the content of the UKIP website reads as if created by a group of sixth formers. If you don't know what I mean, read the tax policy, which asks more questions than it answers -
www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2560-ukip-tax-policy.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 19 Jan 13 at 22:17
|
Here, for those who have not seen it, is a link to the thoughts of Lord Wolfson. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but here is his argument.
tinyurl.com/acnw72t
|
I read Simon Wolfson's piece after I wrote the slightly messy stream of consciousness above. I agree with him - to say we have to stay in, regardless, and that we can't negotiate anything is just wrong. The EU needs to change, for everybody, if we are to stay in.
Incidentally - anybody who has some of their pension fund invested in Standard Life's GARS fund might be interested to know that it has a big bet on the collapse of the Euro at some point. About 25% of our retirement dosh is in there - seems like a sensible precaution to me. DYOR of course.
|
",,,Incidentally - anybody who has some of their pension fund invested in Standard Life's GARS fund might be interested to know that it has a big bet on the collapse of the Euro at some point..."
They would have done better shorting sterling - down 7.5% in the last 6 months
|
>> As for UKIP - it really has no option than to oversimplify its pitch and
propaganda>> p.
>>
>> UKIP lacks any real depth - Farage is charismatic, but the content of the UKIP
>> website reads as if created by a group of sixth formers. If you don't know
>> what I mean, read the tax policy, which asks more questions than it answers -
>>
>>
>> www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2560-ukip-tax-policy.
>>
I don't think that UKIP is naive enough to believe that the party, certainly in the foreseeable future, will be IN government, but rather is seeking to influence government.
It is, in it's present form, a young party, expanding rapidly in paid up membership.
Part of the attraction is, I think, the fact that there are few professional politicians in the ranks. After all, look at the mess that the professional politician clique have made of things.
The party is still evolving and while you may say that some policies are simplistic, I think geater refinement will come with more expertise as new blood has its influence.
|
>>The party is still evolving and while you may say that some policies are simplistic, I think geater refinement will come with more expertise as new blood has its influence.<<
I do agree with this statement and I feel it is opportunity rather than a problem. UKIP certainly has an issue with under 40's still, the lovely Miss Swann aside, so bringing in younger minds, especially on social policy, will I think pay off over the longer term.
|
|
Can anyone point me to the text of General de Gaulle's original speech rejecting our application to join? I can't remember it in detail but, although his motive was bad, his reasoning struck me as impeccable.
|
An exit from the EU would mean the end of my job, and 400 or so more in my company alone. When I say end, I mean transfer overseas. There are lots of other European HQs in the UK that employ a heck of a lot of people. All would go. That's without the trade challenges for British goods and services to the EU.
People wanting out of the EU never seem to be able to say where all the homegrown jobs to replace those currently provided by all the companies who will up sticks and leave will come from.
|
>> An exit from the EU would mean the end of my job, and 400 or
>> so more in my company alone. When I say end, I mean transfer overseas. There
>> are lots of other European HQs in the UK that employ a heck of a
>> lot of people. All would go.
I'd be interested to know how you can be so certain. You mustn't assume everything else stays the same. Sort out the trade tariffs, and provide a friendly tax system, and UK could become a haven. Businesses in the more developed EU countiries will be taxed to death to help the backward eastern states and Turkey to catch up.
|
"Can anyone point me ........"
Transcript of 1963 Press conference in which DeGaulle outlines the reason for rejection of British application to join.
www.cvce.eu/obj/press_conference_held_by_general_de_gaulle_14_january_1963-en-5b5d0d35-4266-49bc-b770-b24826858e1f.html
|
Lots of interesting stuff (including the above) on the Anglo French relationship here.
pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/3118/speciale8.pdf
|
>> Can anyone point me to the text of General de Gaulle's original speech rejecting our
>> application to join? I can't remember it in detail but, although his motive was bad,
>> his reasoning struck me as impeccable.
That the UK would muck up the French hold and subsidy on agriculture, and he hated the Yanks? Yes its all in there.
|
Interesting piece here from a well-respected poster on the expat-in-Spain forum:
"It is a perverse measure of UKIP's current prominence that they can scare prospective immigrants.
Farrage is getting a lot of publicity but imo this is because of what he isn't rather than what he is.
None of the leaders of the three main parties inspires confidence, Farrage comes over as a bit of a maverick and refreshingly unlike your 'normal' politician.
But that's all. When questioned closely his arguments fail to convince. UKIP is now fulfilling the function of the old SDP in the 1980s when voters were sick of the Tories, had no confidence in a Labour Party which was in the hands of the loony left and found a handy outlet to express their frustration in the smaller parties like the SDP and the Liberals, as they then were.
As for allowing Romanians and Bulgarians entry to the UK on equal terms with the other state members...it's about numbers, not racism. We must be stark raving mad if we allow that to happen, even though it's not like 2004 when only a few EU states allowed unlimited entry to citizens of the former Socialist bloc states.
Anyone who thinks the decision to leave the EU will be in the hands of UKIP is seriously deluded. We will stay for the same reason we entered...because it's what big business wants.
Just wait until Branson, the Japanese car manufacturers and all the other multi-nationals who have grown rich out of Europe start pouring their cash into a 'Stay in' campaign. The very valid but scary threat to millions of British jobs will guide voters' hands to tick the 'Yes to EU' box. I hate gambling, the only vice I don't have, but I'd advise others to put money on it".
|
'''Just wait until Branson, the Japanese car manufacturers and all the other multi-nationals who have grown rich out of Europe start pouring their cash into a 'Stay in' campaign'''
wonder if the CIA will chuck a few $million in the yes kitty again.
'''Anyone who thinks the decision to leave the EU will be in the hands of UKIP is seriously deluded. We will stay for the same reason we entered...because it's what big business wants'''
presumably foreign owned is what that poster refers to, not much else left.
|
>>presumably foreign owned is what that poster refers to, not much else left<<
The end is nigh gord, not for 'the like of us' though, hopefully:
www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain
|
|
Thanks CG for two excellent leads.
|
www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain
If you read this , it is probably not worth even bothering with this thread.
Last edited by: pmh on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 14:37
|
It actually isn't very difficult to improve.
The Media is disgusting. Upskirt shots, phone tapping, etc. etc. Do you know why? Because that's how they create the newspaper that YOU will buy.
Politicians are awful. All of them. They behave badly and don't do a good job. Do you know why? Because of the reasons that will drive YOUR choice in who YOU vote for.
Don't tell me, YOU don't believe its your fault, YOU want whats best for the country, its the politicians fault, but YOU didn't vote for them?
An example;
What do you think revenue from fuel taxation is used for? (only about half is spent on road stuff)
Yet you want fuel taxation reduced? How do YOU think that will work? Are YOU prepared to vote for the politician who reduces fuel revenue but then removes £15bn of other services because of it?
Perhaps you are, that's fine. Just so that you understand what you are asking for and don't bitch when you get it.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is, as long as it is your opinion and you stand by it.
Right now the UK has exactly the government and exactly the politicians it voted for exactly the media it is prepared to give money to. OK, lets argue about whether or not it was a strict majority, or strictly fair, - that's noise level. You're arguing about percentage points when entire chunks of the electorate don;t understand the issues, don't vote, or care about who has the best hairstyle.
You may want to say "rip off Britain", or "the country is going to the dogs" etc. etc. But the country is NOT an animate object. What you mean is, you don't like what your fellow citizens are doing to the country.
So do something about it.
Set your criteria for what you want the Government to achieve.
Understand the implications of that choice.
Vote for someone who promises to do it, stop supporting them if they don't.
Stop fuelling the media with irrelevancies such as who called who a pleb and start buying the newspaper that behaves how you believe it should.
Whether or not you think the election system is fair, whether or not it is actually fair, whether or not the politician gets in when he shouldn't, the fact remains that if everybody voted for what they think is right, and understand what they are voting for, the position will improve beyond all measure.
|
>>Vote for someone who promises to do it, stop supporting them if they don't.
That's the difficult part isn't it? Finding one I mean. They are all trying to perfect the claptrap that will get them elected. Even if we give them credit for wanting to do the right thing, they fear being irreversibly unelected if they were to do it, so the ideal candidate for the thinking voter will never appear.
As you rightly say, the electorate has a rather important role in a democracy. If said electorate isn't educated, interested and prepared to take the trouble to understand the options, then it doesn't work properly.
We here are a self selecting bunch who mostly want to understand these things and discuss them. My experience tells me that half the people on the Clapham omnibus aren't interested at all, half of the other half will always vote the same way, and half of the rest will blame the incumbent party for all ills and vote for the other one(s).
If you follow that line of argument then the first priority should be an educated and knowledgeable electorate.
Churchill was probably getting at this obliquely when he said that "democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have been tried".
|
>>so the ideal candidate for the thinking voter will never appear.
its all about "direction of travel".
Tomorrow, no they will not appear. But eventually they will get closer.
Little bit by little bit.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 17:14
|
>> Whether or not you think the election system is fair, whether or not it is
>> actually fair, whether or not the politician gets in when he shouldn't, the fact remains
>> that if everybody voted for what they think is right, and understand what they are
>> voting for, the position will improve beyond all measure.
True to a certain extent, but the problem is that there aren't enough political parties to give every voter exactly what he or she wants.
There are parts of every current parties manifesto with which I agree and similarly parts with which I disagree. {Including UKIP ;-) }
All one can do is to look at the overall thrust of each party's proposals and vote for the one which contains most, (or the most important to you), of the policies in which you believe.
|
>> the first priority should be an educated and knowledgeable electorate.
The thing is, they don't even have to be right.
One FoR in the system with views I totally disagree with but who cares & votes, is worth 10,000 people who have views identical to mine but who do not vote.
And whilst I agree with Roger when he says " there aren't enough political parties to give every voter exactly what he or she wants" it is sooooo badly wrong at the moment that we have room for an awful lot of improvement before the number of parties becomes a primary issue.
Out of interest, lets take an example of a potential policy;
Who in here believes that fuel taxation should be reduced (lets say halved)?
Of those people who believe it should be reduced, where do you believe that the £15bn (ish) should not be spent? given that the NHS and Pensions are our chief expenses. FYI, last time I paid attention roads and road oriented subjects got about £12bn of the £30 something bn raised.
And if you believe that money in the NHS should be saved, what would you not do or who would you fire? (please note that the spending on non-citizens is a fraction of the issue)
And if you would fire the managers and administrators who bring no value, where would you now get the money for their unemployment benefit and the support of their family?
You see one of the major issues is that the REALLY annoying things, like MP expenses for example, are financially miniscule in the context of the country's budget.
And the REALLY expensive things are a matter of personal opinion with a reciprocal hardship.
|
>> Of those people who believe it should be reduced, where do you believe that the £15bn (ish) should not be spent? given that the NHS and Pensions are our chief expenses. FYI, last time I paid attention roads and road oriented subjects got about £12bn of the £30 something bn raised.
A valid point on first examination, Mark, but.....
Halfing fuel duty will not half the tax-take:
More people will drive as it will be cheaper, thus at least offsetting the reduction; and
Lower costs on industry may increase business productivity and competetiveness, especially with overseas competitors.
The argument also has to be made that lowering tax may actually increase national prosperity and goverment income.
If fuel duty was doubled you can be pretty sure the tax take from it will not double, and an adverse effect on the economy as a whole would be likely (how this is measured is always a battle of vested interests and political expediency of course).
|
>>And if you would fire the managers and administrators who bring no value, where would you now get the money for their unemployment benefit and the support of their family?<<
In cold hard clinical terms, it is cheaper to pay them unemployment benefits than pay their wages - the state pays either way but job seeekers allowance is a pittance.
You can of course allow people to retire and not replace them, something my mum is working towards at the company she works for where she is 3 years from retirement and already training two other women in their office to eventually take over the various tasks she performs, tasks which she in turn took over from 3 other people over the last ten years.
>>You see one of the major issues is that the REALLY annoying things, like MP expenses for example, are financially miniscule in the context of the country's budget.<<
Of course, but government spending must be a matter of principle aswell as practicality. As far as MP expenses go, they seem to be mainly in support of the little dears having to travel to Parliament, which seems odd in the days of the internet and computers which would allow them to vote, Im sure securely, from their constituancy, thus removing the need for much of their travel and additional housing costs. Problem is they are too busy playing monopoly and pocketing the cash.
|
>>but government spending must be a matter of principle aswell as practicality
Why?
Let us assume two scenarios;
MP A. Totally honest, never steals a penny, lovely chap, never really done anything of significance.
MP B. Git. If its not bolted down he'll nick it. However, has historically achieved phenomenal inward investment, supports unions, big business loves him, really hard in EC negotiations always achieving concessions.
I would vote for MP B.
Because I want them to be a political and economic leader. If I need moral guidance I'll pop down the church.
He can shaft half the female staff, or male staff for that matter, he can shoplift and drive a Renault. But these were not my requirements of him. Growing the country economy, bringing sense to the laws etc. etc were my targets.
|
A degree of honesty and morals IS required in our government. If thats not the case then we end up with electoral fraud, loss of our voting rights, possibly military control of the populace by force, and rampant high level corruption.
Loads of examples about.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 19:01
|
No Zero, honesty, higher principle and morality are not required, but a certain behaviour is. Those are two different things.
Lets be honest, look what and who they're governing.
I would vote for the one who achieves what I wanted him to achieve, rather than worrying abot £50 on his expenses. Or £50k for that matter.
|
|
And corruption? Do you really have a moral objection to corruption? Because if you say you do I absolutely don't believe you.
|
|
No I dont have a moral objection to corruption, but I do have practical ones, nothing drags the wealth and prosperity of a country down faster or further than widespread corruption in government, its spreads through the economy and drains the wealth away.,
|
>>No I dont have a moral objection to corruption, but I do have practical ones
Excellent, and so you should.
So, if I have a dodgy salesman who consistently achieves every one of his goals, including sales & revenue, and I also have Snow White, but she's rubbish at the job.
I'll keep the fast and loose one and fire the pure one. (resist the pun, you know you can).
Obviously morality and honest play a part, but they're quite a long way down my list.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:48
|
>> >>No I dont have a moral objection to corruption, but I do have practical ones
>>
>> Excellent, and so you should.
>>
>> So, if I have a dodgy salesman who consistently achieves every one of his goals,
>> including sales & revenue, and I also have Snow White, but she's rubbish at the
>> job.
>>
>> I'll keep the fast and loose one and fire the pure one. (resist the pun,
>> you know you can).
>>
>> Obviously morality and honest play a part, but they're quite a long way down my
>> list.
They shouldn't be, cos many of those fraudulent or dodgy deal he did will bite you ass further down the line. Snow White should be fired cos she is Sh... thats a given, but you dont want a shed load of tea leaves either.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:48
|
>> but you dont want a shed load of tea leaves either.
No, but neither should you be standing on a moral soapbox.
|
>> So, if I have a dodgy salesman who consistently achieves every one of his goals, including sales & revenue, and I also have Snow White, but she's rubbish at the job.
>> I'll keep the fast and loose one and fire the pure one
Of course you would - he makes YOU look good by helping you hit your own targets.
At which point you burger off with your loot and leave the company wondering why everyone now has their hand in the till as the behaviour has been condoned from up high.
They both get the boot from my ship if 're-education' doesn't help them. Hell, why not bring in the shark, tell him you know he's dipping and that it needs to stop.. but you're also increasing his slice of pie as he's such a good salesman.
Simply turning a blind eye is just you lining your own pockets in the short term.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:47
|
Ok, you're right.
But what I mean is this, we have to understand what we have asked the politician to do (or indeed what he has promised to do) and then judge him on whether or not he does it. (Assuming that it is something we want him to do).
There is little point in telling a politician that he will be voted in for promising to reduce fuel duty and then kept in for increasing spending on the benefits system, and then bitching when he doesn't cut fuel duty.
More than anything a politician wants to be a politician. He will do or say what he believes will get him elected and he will then do what he believes will keep him in that position. And they are not fools, if they are focussing on spin then it is because that is what they believe is most likely to convince the relevant part of the electorate.
If the focus is on kissing babies, then he'll kiss babies.
As I keep saying, our problem is not the politicians, it is the electorate.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 20:07
|
>> And corruption? Do you really have a moral objection to corruption? Because if you say you do I absolutely don't believe you.
No FM2R is a Ferengi AICMFP.
|
>>AICMFP
That took me a while.
|
>> No Zero, honesty, higher principle and morality are not required, but a certain behaviour is.
>> Those are two different things.
>>
>> Lets be honest, look what and who they're governing.
>>
>> I would vote for the one who achieves what I wanted him to achieve, rather
>> than worrying abot £50 on his expenses. Or £50k for that matter.
I want both (not a saint ok, but people who are basically honest) Must be possible shirley.
|
Perhaps its possible, but I don't know why you would care.
Surely the primary metric is benefits the country, me, or whatever as he promised to do. Of course there are things he could do (e.g. kiddy fiddling) which would outweigh that benefit. But fiddling his expenses, nailing his secretary or calling a copper a pleb? - Oh please.
Now, if we have two otherwise identical politicians in ability, achievement and drive, its a good a metric as any. But its down the list.
|
>> Perhaps its possible, but I don't know why you would care.
>>
>> Surely the primary metric is benefits the country, me, or whatever as he promised to
>> do. Of course there are things he could do (e.g. kiddy fiddling) which would outweigh
>> that benefit. But fiddling his expenses, nailing his secretary or calling a copper a pleb?
>> - Oh please.
Oh please yes exactly. He can call whoever he likes what, he can knock his secretary and her kids up for all I care, but if his job is to take away my pension and benefits (because thats what the country needs) and he is pathetic enough to help himself to the expenses cash tin, he is going to get my boot up his ass pretty damn quick. He is taking the P!
|
If I grasped your response, then I think i agree.
He has a job. If I voted for him to do that job, and he's doing that job, then he's pretty safe from me.
But if I didn't vote for him, or he's not doing that job, or he is otherwise offending, then I'm going to do everything I can to nail him to a wall.
Its called democracy.
Sitting on your backside bitching from the sidelines asking for utopia is not.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:48
|
>>I would vote for the one who achieves what I wanted him to achieve, rather than worrying abot £50 on his expenses. Or £50k for that matter.<<
Not related to Sarkozy are you? :-)
I personally do believe one must act in an honest and moral way to serve in parliament.
|
>>I personally do believe one must act in an honest and moral way to serve in parliament.
So explain to me why.
And citing personal preference is ok, but then one would have to consider ranking your preferences.
|
>>Not related to Sarkozy are you?
No, but I've worked with Berlusconi. And he's smarter than you think he is.
|
>> >>Not related to Sarkozy are you?
>>
>> No, but I've worked with Berlusconi.
Ah, I can see how you are not bothered about screwing anything that moves and helping yourself to the petty cash.
|
|
Sorry, are you being supportive, understanding or critical?
|
>> Sorry, are you being supportive, understanding or critical?
He's being critical FMR.
You seem to have noticed that in politics there are two levels of discourse, one for the professionals and one for the punters. From there on you go completely haywire and over the top, from the slippery slope of 'what's wrong with a bit of corruption?' to the brilliance of Bungaman. I don't know to what extent your political views have been formed by Latin American practice, but they don't seem to have been formed in this country.
There is often ill-informed generalization about 'politicians' on this website. They are an odd species but in a long life I have come to understand that many try quite hard to be honest, do the right thing, serve their constituents and so on. I've met a good few here and elsewhere. The ones here are no worse than the ones elsewhere, to put it as moderately as possible.
The other thing people don't get about them is how clever they are. It is sometimes said that politics is the only game for adults. Many of us are not nearly grown-up enough to get a place at the table let alone move on from there. You make them sound like a bunch of sleazy toerags. Just as well for you that they aren't.
|
>> Sorry, are you being supportive, understanding or critical?
How would you like to take it?
|
>>How would you like to take it? <<
I expect with a brown envelope of cash, a wink and a nod.
|
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm#a3
Im sure you will hate it, I mean there are words like integrity and honesty there, but that is what MPs are signing up to in this country and ill take that over your bunga bunga style any day.
|
>>and ill take that over your bunga bunga style any day
I think I'm not explaining my point properly.
I'm trying to say that we should understand what we want a politician to do, vote for them if they promise to do it, and then vote for them again if they did it.
If our overpowering desire is that they take us out of Europe, and they are going to, should we bounce them out for screwing up their expenses?
We lost a speaker, who may or may not have been a good one, because we got het up over whether or not he called a policeman a pleb.
If he was a good speaker, did it matter?
If he was a bad speaker, why did we care whether or not he was rude, we should have had him fired anyway.
So I am not saying that honesty is irrelevant. What I am saying is that one needs to remember why you voted for them and judge them by that standard.
|
>> So I am not saying that honesty is irrelevant. What I am saying is that one needs to remember why you voted for them and judge them by that standard.
I know where you're coming from, but there are certain standards to be met in my opinion - even if Elliot Morley was the bees knees, him claiming fraudulenty for a mortgage he no longer had would get him the chop.
These guys are not indispensible.
Like bankers.
Once someone sees they get away with corrupt practices there is a very real risk that they will escalate this part of their behaviour, while developing a sense of 'entitlement' that is entirely fantasy.
In medical circles we have Shipman who followed this path, but then again lives aren't worth as much as $$$ ;-)
Pumping secretaries and calling coppers 'plebs' or 'hoi polloi' is not, in my estimation, tantamount to corruption.
|
>>What I am saying is that one needs to remember why you voted for them and judge them by that standard.<<
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5104564/Meet-Westminsters-cheapest-MP-Philip-Hollobone.html
My local MP. He is what I voted for, not just his views but his ethos too.
I dont believe MPs conduct is soley to be judged by their constituants. They sign up to a code of conduct and they are also no different for anyone else when it comes to the law, so their behaviour DOES matter beyond whether or not a few thousand people vote for them.
Ill say this, to me personally, if a politician is dishonest, I dont care what their policies are or whether they can deliver them, I wont vote for them, end of and that includes anyone in UKIP I might add - if they had someone in a position of power ( rather than a paid up groupie ) who was allowed to remain in that position after firm evidence of wrongdoing, they would loose my vote instantly. But that is me, I understand others have the 'aslong as the trains run on time' attitude, something quite popular in Russia so I was told.
|
>>Ill say this, to me personally, if a politician is dishonest, I dont care what their policies are
>>or whether they can deliver them, I wont vote for them, end of and that includes anyone in
>>UKIP I might add
Fair enough. Admirable.
"In 1999 the BBC spent four months filming a documentary about [Farage's] European election campaign but did not show it. Farage, then head of the UKIP's South East office, asked for a video and had friends make illegal copies which were sold for £5 through the UKIP's magazine. Surrey Trading Standards investigated and Farage has admitted the offence"
And now?
|
>>something quite popular in Russia so I was told
And like so much that you believe because of what you have been told, wrong.
It wasn't actually true anyway but the reference was to Italy and Mussolini.
|
>>And like so much that you believe because of what you have been told, wrong. <<
Well, I was told it by a Russian, so ill take her word over yours. She said politics in Russia was more about hoping that whatever was imposed on you by the usual suspects wasnt too bad, but the notion of real choice a fantasy that would make your life difficult should you indulge it.
|
>>I was told it by a Russian
I doubt it.
|
>> And now? <<
Ah well we are entering the realms of moral crime and crime as defined by law. See, while it was naughty, it was also enterprising. I reserve the right to choose how I view past transgressions, including the choice to disregard silly choices.
|
>>Ah well we are entering the realms of moral crime and crime as defined by law
And you wonder why I think you're not that bright.
It is against the law, and your words were..
" if a politician is dishonest, I dont care what their policies are or whether they can deliver them, I wont vote for them, end of and that includes anyone in UKIP I might add"
You didn't mention that there were degrees of dishonesty, or that your approval was relevant.
|
>>And you wonder why I think you're not that bright.
Leaving aside the insult and the fact that this thread has now descended to the level of the one it replaced, that is nitpicking worthy of the recently sent off member.
Of course there are degrees of dishonesty, just as there cannot be a perfect vacuum.
You should be sacked for fabricating expenses, or using your company credit card for personal expenditure, but not if your daughter is found to be drawing pictures with a company pencil. I think most people understand what fiddling is.
|
>>Leaving aside the insult and the fact that this thread has now descended to the level of the one it replaced
I don't know how else to say it;
How can one first say that any dishonesty is unacceptable "end of", and then say that one particular dishonesty is ok, and that you reserve the right to judge previous dishonesty how you choose?
I cannot think of any worthy motivation. Can you?
|
>>Ill say this, to me personally, if a politician is dishonest, I dont care what their policies are or whether they can deliver them
My instinct is that t those who fiddle to line their pockets should be dismissed instantly, and I see no reason to except an elected representative.
I've given some thought to the proposition that it's only the results that count, but I haven't changed my opinion.
That's not just a matter of principle. It's actually naive to think it can ever be OK to let it go on when it has come to light, because the consequence will be a state where honesty and integrity are not valued and corruption is endemic - I'm sure Mark has been to several such places.
Incidentally, the UK made its own difficulties over the MP's expenses fiddling mainly by institutionalising fiddling. There was a widespread and tacit understanding that MP's allowances were a perk to make up for a low salary; that was pretty much true. The problem was that there was no line between honest fiddling and dishonest fiddling, so you ended up with the blatant crookery of people like the erstwhile member for Luton, using fabricated transactions.
|
>>Im sure you will hate it, I mean there are words like integrity and honesty
Why would I hate it?
|
>> www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain
>>
>> If you read this , it is probably not worth even bothering with this thread.
They are trying to sell you the magazine.
|
They are trying to sell you the magazine.
Yes - but do they need to use copywriters who last wrote the adverts for that 'wonderful cleaning machine' last seen on the shopping channel at a heavily discounted price:)
|
|
They are ex sun, did you see that every tag line is in bold red?
|
>> They are ex sun, did you see that every tag line is in bold red?
Perhaps that is why the link says it's downloading data from here, there and everywhere before going sulkily blank when I click on it. Either this computer scorns the carp and refuses to show it, or it knows that I would scorn it and is trying to curry favour with me. Damn clever these computers.
|
>> The end is nigh gord, not for 'the like of us' though, hopefully:
>>
>> www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain
Thanks D, doesn't surprise me TBH but almost reassuring that those who don't get their views from the Mail should feel the same..;), the only reason the bells haven't tolled already is because the interest rate is artificially being held low which can only last so long, we've always known once that changes then all bets are off.
Looks like the Moneyweek team trust our govt. about as far as we do.
We're pretty well battened down here anyway, i have no doubt you are similarly belt and braced to ride out the coming storm, keep your powder dry old chap it may well be needed.
|
|
A fraudulent article, predicated on values unadjusted for inflation. Our current interest payments on debt are a consequence of Govt deflation, aka as recession, and the bail-out of the Tory supporters aka the banks.
|
>>predicated on values unadjusted for inflation
Without comparison with the likely situation if those actions were not taken...
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 20:31
|
>>Looks like the Moneyweek team trust our govt. about as far as we do
Have you ever read Moneyweek before?
Would you allow their article similar credence if it undermined your opinion?
|
>>I have no doubt you are similarly belt and braced to ride out the coming storm, keep your powder dry old chap it may well be needed<<
Yes indeedy - I can grow my own (and the rabbits) veg, keep a few hens, plus I'm 'in' with the local farmers,
I have a private water supply, am surrounded by trees and ... have a big chopper.
:-))
|
>presumably foreign owned is what that poster refers to, not much else left.
Do you mean where the parent company is registered on a non-UK stock exchange?
Or do you mean where its listed on the UK Stock Exchange but the majority of the shareholders are not British?
But what about companies registered outside the UK where significant shareholders are in the UK?
Or are you just repeating something you read in the Daily Mail because actually you don't understand how it matters?
Because company ownership is pretty irrelevant to anything. Where it is registered and where the majority of its revenues are declared is a different matter.
The UK loses out on behaviour it permits for all companies, irrespective of ownership. The primary loss is usually tax revenue.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 14:29
|
To summarise-
In order to solve the UK's problems;
-Understand the real issues
-Understand the potential choices, and the implications of those choices.
-Vote for whoever seems to promise to be closest to delivering your desires.
-Accept the implications of your choices.
-Vote for him again if he is moving in the direction you want.
Two unacceptable behaviours;
-Not voting and then believing you should still have a voice
-Believing your own ignorance is acceptable
It is not important what you believe, only that you believe it, understand it, stand by it and commit to it.
Don't think I have anything else to say.
|
I want my MP to have honesty and integrity AND be proficient at their role in representing their constituents and this country.
I don't want one and not the other.
Having said the above (and meant it) the system isn't good and to some extent encouraged fiddling...because their salaries are artificially low and it became an accepted practice to make things up elsewhere. That should not be, they are leading the country FFS...pay them something suitable to go with the job.
How can our MP's properly manage on a salary that matches middle ranking civil servants? Why can't a government minister travel 1st class on a train..at our expense. Why can't a govt minister travel in a govt car? They do everywhere else in the world.
The trouble is we expect saints and enjoy knocking them down when we do not get them, particularly the red top press.
There are some bits to it though that IMO should be 100% non negotiable i.e. honesty and integrity in public office ... but the porking of the secretary I couldn't care less about...unless they've campaigned on morals that they don't really have and have lied or are a gross hypocrite.
I think you can be open and honest yet still have foibles...and that is what decent human beings are.
|
Reading this thread (from afar) I notice how a discussion of EU membership has morphed into a discussion of the quality of UK MPs - arguably unrelated to the EU debate ?
I subscribe to the view that leaving the EU is economic suicide for the UK, it could easily become an economic and geopolitical irrelevance - which may be desirable (no foreign aid to pay, no compunction to fight others' wars perhaps), but I doubt it.
As an individual paying significant amounts of tax in 3 countries, I can vote in none of them - what I observe is that politicians are no-better elsewhere in the world, I begin to wonder if the mere act of seeking political power marks an individual out as being unsuited to holding that power ?
|
>>I subscribe to the view that leaving the EU is economic suicide for the UK, it could easily become an economic and geopolitical irrelevance
Back to the conundrum of whether that means UK stay stay in, on any terms - the exact problem considered by Simon Wolfson in the DT article.
>> I begin to wonder if the mere act of seeking political power marks an individual out as being unsuited to holding that power ?
It should certainly make us question the seeker's motives, though Mark might say he doesn't care about the motives if the results are OK. Unsafe reasoning in my opinion.
Apology for putting the words in his mouth and then disagreeing with him ;-)
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 22:26
|
>> though Mark might say he doesn't care about the motives if the results are OK
I'm trying not to say that. I do care about their decency but I take into account their performance. And there are degrees of both. And TO A DEGREE one can balance the other.
|
Mark
Maybe I've been corrupted but in my old word no matter how good you were or how magnificent your achievements bent was bent and dealt with harshly.
|
>>bent was bent and dealt with harshly.
And that is fine. Preferable even.
So, if we made that a statement - politicians may not be bent. Then they would work to that because they all want to be reelected. But sadly that's not how it works. (Honestly I'm not sure it ever did).
What happens is bent might be bent, we'll check with the media and get back to you; if its a quiet day for news then bent is definitely bent, but if its quite a busy day then bent might not be bent.
Do we think that the whip was the first person in 10 years to have a gobby row with a copper? I doubt it; but it was a quiet news day and it nicely blended with the tragedy a couple of days before it to allow a bit of punter outrage (always good for selling a paper or two).
So the guy was hounded from office. Was he a good Whip ? I've no idea. But it didn't matter, did it.
The expenses scandal. Some of them broke the law, and intentionally so. No excuse.
Some of them just played the game legally. And the public was outraged - hypocrites. Because the public would think nothing of doing the same.
So, you don't get to stay a politician because you did what you said you would do, or even because you're honest. You stay a politician by not annoying anyone on a quiet news day.
|
You keep going on about the chief whip. Was he a personal friend or summink?
His case is special
To be elected, people need to like you* He knows that, he spent a great deal of effort to get elected on that premiss. The he starts getting stroppy to coppers about a stupid ruddy gate of all things. He must know if stuff like that gets out it will sound bad and he wont be liked and he wont get elected again.
But he did it anyway.
Now that makes him a complete prat and idiot. You want prats and idiots ruling the country?
If I was a stroppy MP and he came over all strong to me he would be reminded about the "gate" incident with a flea in his ear. Now one of the reasons that Cameron looks weak, is because he is constantly having to appease the more loony aspects of his MPs, that to me indicates the Chief Whip couldn't whip up a meringue.
You want a Chief Whip like that?
One of the issues you get is that if the opposition is howling for the head of your Chief Whip the last thing you can do is get rid of him.
So there we are, Poor old Cameron is stuck with a Whip who is a prat and cant whip and he cant move him. He also has a Whip who is such a prat he couldn't see how bad it would look and didn't resign.
Now Mark, is that the kind of guy you want running your country?
*now I know you don't like this aspect, but it is a fact.
|
|
Needs must when the devil drives perhaps; a bit of creative dissembling might be needed to solve the Europe problem in a way that benefits the UK.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 20 Jan 13 at 22:55
|
>> a bit of creative dissembling might be needed
Now that does show a bit of insight into politics as they necessarily are. 'Systematic obfuscation' was an expression used to me in an interview by a former very senior cabinet minister.
We as a nation are renowned in Europe, or used to be, for what outsiders saw as our 'hypocrisy'. It's a pity so many people confuse this useful talent with mere crookedness.
I was going to put a smiley to show that I know it's funny. But it isn't a joke so I won't.
|
It's an "IN" from me.
I think the economic argument is pretty much won (in favour of the "IN" argument to avoid any doubt"), so that leaves the "OUT"ers relying on arguments of self determination and democracy - moral principles rather than practical ones. I have some sympathy with their position and even voted UKIP in EU elections when the party was very new. But I come down on the side of practicalities these days, and have wavered far enough on the "principles" argument also.
I think we've achieved the best of both worlds currently, by avoiding Euro currency membership (by accident rather than design, admittedly), whilst maintaining full membership in all other respects. And I think that's fine. I don't see any argument for an improvement to our lot (in practical and economic terms) by leaving.
|
"The Economic argument is pretty much won".
Not necessarily.
tinyurl.com/aao2pnd
(Link to Huffpost response by a UKIP member.)
|
>> "The Economic argument is pretty much won".
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/aao2pnd
>>
>> (Link to Huffpost response by a UKIP member.)
Not really more than a set of assertions from the antis.
Certainly no proof that job loss figures put forward by pro camp are a lie.
|
>>
>> Not really more than a set of assertions from the antis.
>>
>> Certainly no proof that job loss figures put forward by pro camp are a lie.
......which are not really more than a set of assertions from the pros.
|
>> >>
>> >> Not really more than a set of assertions from the antis.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly no proof that job loss figures put forward by pro camp are a
>> lie.
>>
>> ......which are not really more than a set of assertions from the pros.
The difference being the credence I give the organisations which put forward those assertions from both sides, and the reasons I credit them with for proposing those assertions.
|
The CBI say we will be worse out, and UKIP says we wont.
I know who I think I believe.
|
>> The CBI say we will be worse out, and UKIP says we wont.
>>
>> I know who I think I believe.
>>
When "experts" are all in agreement, they are usually wrong.
|
>> "The Economic argument is pretty much won".
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/aao2pnd
>>
>> (Link to Huffpost response by a UKIP member.)
>>
Slagging off Tony Blair is not an argument.
It's a rant..
But UKIPpers cannot see the difference-- which says it all. :-)
Last edited by: madf on Tue 22 Jan 13 at 14:35
|
I will believe UKIPPers if they put their money where their mouths are about being richer after exit.
Something like a personal guarantee by every UKIP member to reimburse any and all personal losses if we as individuals lose out..
And if we gain they can take the credit for it.
Seems fair to me..:-)
|
You put your Left foot in
Your Right foot out
In, out, in, out and shake it all about;
You do the hokey-cokey and you turn around -
That's what it's all about...
|
|
Oh kiss me in the middle.Some exitement over the next few years.Vote Tory in the next election and guranteed referendum.Good move just what we need with all the problems we have.NHS reform sky high youth unemployement and welfare cuts.Its all the fault of them foreigners.>:)
|
How right you are Dutchie. What a pathetic waste of time and resources it will all be, with the possibility of an "Out" vote at the end of it costing us even more and impoverishing the country further. Lunacy.
I might even vote Labour. *shudders*
|
I don't post very often on here, but I've got something of a vested interest here.
I work, as I've mentioned before, in the freight trade. Almost all the companies I work with export mainly to the EC. Yes, I also arrange a significant amount of freight to the rest of the World, and I've seen that amount increase over the past 10 years, but the majority of the freight that I oversee still goes to the EC.
For a company based in the UK exporting goods to the EC is much easier and cheaper than to non EC countries in Europe and the rest of the World. This is not just due to distance; it's down to the simplification of import procedures, tariffs, duties, etc, etc.
Take away this, and the cost of exporting goods to the EC, and transit times, are going to increase. At a time when the UK really needs to export goods the end result of withdrawal from the EC will mean goods from the UK are less competitive in one of our prime markets.
|
|
This stupid proposed referendum, a usurpation of parliamentary authority, is being used to place DC favourably for the election after next. He knows he is unlikely to win the next one, especially if Clegg pulls the rug away. The referendum will not take place. Avoiding the adverse consequences of setting the UK adrift, at the mercy of an indifferent but still acquisitive USA with eyes on UK possessions, (Lend/lease was an alternative to signing over Jamaica, Bahamas etc) and a vengeful Europe. In the meantime, DC scores points against UKIP, vote poachers in Tory terms. He might have thought this one through.....
Last edited by: NIL on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 10:29
|
So let's see who would be better off after this exchange. The country receiving successful businesses, or the country receiving private tax avoiders.
Hmm. Tough one.
|
It's all very well for the Alanovich, Dutchie, NIL and AshT to pooh pooh the idea of leaving the EU but that doesn't address the points that
1. It is unworkable as it is. This has become the elephant in the room.
2. Given the advantages of being in the free trade area, what should the EU and the UK's relationship with it look like?
If any of the four above thinks that the Euro can survive without federal government of the states within the zone then can they please explain how. Otherwise, come clean and say you want a federal Europe. Then, please say whether you want the UK in or out of the Eurozone and how the EU can operate with Euro and non-Euro states.
I instinctively detest Cameron and the Bullingdon boys, but his reasoning is impeccable and inevitable even if the articulation of it was typically mealy mouthed and chinless. Negotiate the best deal you can, and then decide whether to sign up to it. Meanwhile watch how the EU is solving the Euro problem.
I don't see how that approach can be convincingly disputed. And as a bonus he has just made UKIP an irrelevance for Conservative voters, at least for now.
Labour is utterly wrong footed - Milliband is reduced to name calling and rhetoric - as Caroline Flint has just been forced to say,at the fourth time of asking by Brillo Pad Neil, Labour's position is not to offer a referendum.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 12:08
|
|
We're not in, and aren't going to join, the Euro currency. If the Eurozone goes Federal, it won't include us. All it will mean is that the EU has fewer member states - The Federal United States of Europe, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and the other non-Euro currency countries. There's not much to be gained from leaving, and an awful lot to be lost.
|
>> It's all very well for the Alanovich, Dutchie, NIL and AshT to pooh pooh the
>> idea of leaving the EU but that doesn't address the points that
>>
>> 1. It is unworkable as it is. This has become the elephant in the room.
Is it? really? Most of the economic woes have been global in nature, and due to cheap credit driven policies of individual states, BUT with the help of the EU they are improving - a lot.
>> 2. Given the advantages of being in the free trade area, what should the EU
>> and the UK's relationship with it look like?
>>
>> If any of the four above thinks that the Euro can survive without federal government
>> of the states within the zone then can they please explain how.
Don't need to explain - it is surviving despite all the dire predictions of Greek breakaway and total collapse. It hasn't happened, where is it?
>> Otherwise, come clean
>> and say you want a federal Europe. Then, please say whether you want the UK
>> in or out of the Eurozone and how the EU can operate with Euro and
>> non-Euro states.
It is operating, with two tiers, and surviving, why does it need to radically change?
>> I instinctively detest Cameron and the Bullingdon boys, but his reasoning is impeccable and inevitable
>> even if the articulation of it was typically mealy mouthed and chinless. Negotiate the best
>> deal you can,
He has said nothing. In effect he has put the whole thing on hold, and if you think you will get a chance to vote, forget it - its not coming, because there is no deal on the table, no negotiating is possible, the Europeans have made it quite clear, take it as it is or sod off.
>>and then decide whether to sign up to it. Meanwhile watch how
>> the EU is solving the Euro problem.
As before - what problem? its surviving and will only improve.
>>
>> I don't see how that approach can be convincingly disputed. And as a bonus he
>> has just made UKIP an irrelevance for Conservative voters, at least for now.
>>
>> Labour is utterly wrong footed - Milliband is reduced to name calling and rhetoric -
And there you have it, in a nut shell. Add "to appease the rebel tory members" and you have the only reason that Cameroon spoke up. Not that anything will come of it.
|
|
Strangely I have read the story that the EC is unworkable for two decades.
|
|
Well put Zero. And, if it takes the expulsion of non-conforming economies like Greece from the EU zone, to make the Euro more secure, more power to their elbow. If that is what it takes.
Last edited by: NIL on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 13:03
|
>> And there you have it, in a nut shell. Add "to appease the rebel tory
>> members" and you have the only reason that Cameroon spoke up. Not that anything will
>> come of it.
Completely agree with this. Not only appeasing the rebel Tories, but clearly an attempt to counter UKIP who are stealing Tory votes by the bucketload. The national interest did not feature in this in any position of priority.
This speech was very damaging, IMHO. If you were on the board of a company looking to build, or relocate a European HQ, how can this dithering, haggling, disharmonious, non-committal rubbish have done anything other than move the UK down the list of places to base it?
Last edited by: DP on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 14:16
|
1. As far as my personal experience shows Manatee, it's not unworkable. I arrange despatch of a large amount of freight every week to the EU. It takes a minimal amount of paperwork to despatch something to the EU, compared with a non-EU country, which means less cost. That saving is passed onto the shipper. Amongst the companies I work with are several multinationals with outlets across Europe; if the UK ceases to be in the EU I can see them upping sticks and shifting production to the EU as the cost of getting their goods to their main market will increase significantly.
2. The relationship should look like it does now - as I've said it works very well for us.
As I put in my first post I've got a vested interest. If freight traffic drops, as I'm sure it will do if we withdraw from the EU, I could be out of a job - as could a very significant number of people in this country employed in the manufacturing and distribution areas.
|
AshT
Far too sensible a reply.
|
Ash,
I'm sure both the free trade and, within Schengen, free movement areas work well. I think Manatee's point was about the political/decision making process and the costs.
|
>> Ash,
>>
>> I'm sure both the free trade and, within Schengen, free movement areas work well. I
>> think Manatee's point was about the political/decision making process and the costs.
In part yes. I don't think the Euro can live indefinitely on Germany's largesse if that means Spain bumping along with 40% unemployment for example. The only reason govt debt yields only 5% in Spain is because it is already perceived to be backed by Germany - ditto Italy at 4% and Greece at 10%. None of those countries has a hope of paying its own debts or reviving its own economy.
Ireland was in the cart long before 2008 with an overheated economy and unable to raise interest rates to deal with it. Nothing to do with the world economy or the banking crisis.
The can has been kicked down the road. The best that can be hoped for is a gradual default through inflation and bailouts, but it will keep happening until the eurozone unites under one government - the German electorate are not going to be too keen on the cost of political union either.
As for Zero's claim that it is working - it doesn't look that way to me. You have Italy effectively bust with rising debt and in a recession, while it's also contributing to bailouts elsewhere. Teeming and lading only ever ends one way and then people get hurt.
I'm not Henny Penny just saying the sky's falling in, I want it to be confronted and discussed honestly (though I know why that can't happen). But better a chicken than an ostrich.
|
|
Trouble is, any chickens leaving now will end up in someone's kebab.
|
>>
>> Ireland was in the cart long before 2008 with an overheated economy and unable to
>> raise interest rates to deal with it. Nothing to do with the world economy or
>> the banking crisis.
Nothing to do with the EU then, you cant say however the EU is not helping them out of the crisis.
>> The can has been kicked down the road. The best that can be hoped for
>> is a gradual default through inflation and bailouts, but it will keep happening until the
>> eurozone unites under one government
That is a guess on your part with nothing based on past experience to justify it. There are plenty of other outcomes that you seem to have ignored.
>> As for Zero's claim that it is working - it doesn't look that way to
>> me. You have Italy effectively bust with rising debt and in a recession,
Would that have happened in or out of the EU? Has it happened because of the EU?
Is it possible that the Eu helping to keep Italy afloat is a good thing?
Ireland, Spain and Portugal are all overcoming their financial problems. The question in my mind is were their problem caused by the EU and the single currency, or by local fiscal policies or global events. That they are in the mire but improving ( rapidly in Irelands case ) because of EU assistance not a good thing and proof that the EU is working?
There is/was a global recession (China included), seems to me being part of the EU shield has been a good thing.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 13:57
|
"
Ireland, Spain and Portugal are all overcoming their financial problems. The question in my mind is were their problem caused by the EU and the single currency, or by local fiscal policies or global events. That they are in the mire but improving ( rapidly in Irelands case ) because of EU assistance not a good thing and proof that the EU is working?"
Did the EC persuade the Spanish to build 1 million extra house? Or the Irish a smaller number?
No
Could Irealnd and Spain stopped their housing bubble ?
Well they could not change interest rates which were fixed by the EC but they could have reined in their banks who were lending.
How? By requiring them to hold a larger % of capital against loans. Which would have significantly cut down the rate of lending.
They could have restricted building by using a permit system.
Neither of these were done.. but the various Basel agreements are now in place - after the event to make it EC wide.
There was also large scale fraud in Ireland linked to politicians which was known about for decades. Ditto Spain.
So in answer to your questions: they could have done something.
I have lived as an adult through the bubbles of
1971-73
1988-92
and the last one which ended in 2008.
They are all the same and end in tears. Economic history is full of them from the South Sea Bubble and Dutch tulips on. (and long before)
Central bankers must know history. Even Gordon Brown promised no more housing bubbles.
A political failure ..
So for anyone who says it's the EC's fault... it's not. It's a total lack of fiscal common sense locally.
(Hence the drive to EC fiscal unity - which should be interesting when the Greeks stop tax evasion :-)
Anyone who says it's the EC's fault is so ignorant that if in power they would likely make the same mistakes again.
None of it is rocket science .. standard human nature..
|
|
It's the political/decision making process which has allowed the current situation with trade to exist Bromptonaut. I'll be the first to admit it's not perfect, but as I've said it works well and it keeps the door to European trade open to the UK.
Last edited by: AshT on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 13:46
|
And where is your evidence that it works well, apart from the form filling? Who really cares about the forms apart from you? If customers want the goods, they'll fill the forms in. Yes, you need the trade agreements or a free trade area, and that needs to be taken into account.
To Zero - Ireland's problem had everything to do with the EU - it was in the Euro and stuck with the Euro interest rate, when it would otherwise have raised rates to control inflation. The point being that it couldn't manage it's own economy. Look at the agonising that goes on over UK interest rates - had we been in the Euro we would have had to take what we were given, regardless of growth and inflation.
Our elected representatives seem rather relieved we aren't in the Euro. If we were, we'd be in thrall to Germany too.
|
>> And where is your evidence that it works well, apart from the form filling? Who
>> really cares about the forms apart from you? If customers want the goods, they'll fill
>> the forms in. Yes, you need the trade agreements or a free trade area, and
>> that needs to be taken into account.
>>
>> To Zero - Ireland's problem had everything to do with the EU - it was
>> in the Euro and stuck with the Euro interest rate, when it would otherwise have
>> raised rates to control inflation. The point being that it couldn't manage it's own economy.
>> Look at the agonising that goes on over UK interest rates - had we been
>> in the Euro we would have had to take what we were given, regardless of
>> growth and inflation.
Ireland could have managed their own economy but didn't, actively encouraging the expansion on the back of a property boom fuelled by very poor lending practices. Not the fault of the EU. Nor caused by the EU.
|
|
Interest rates are only one of a number of economic levers it is possible to control inflation in other ways
Last edited by: commerdriver on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 14:40
|
>> Our elected representatives seem rather relieved we aren't in the Euro. If we were, we'd
>> be in thrall to Germany too.
But we are in EU, best of both worlds, why not keep the same.
|
Agreed, this was a financial services industry management issue, not an EU issue.
Look at the UK - let the banks run riot for years unchecked, and then suffer when the wheels inevitably fall off. Our power to set our own interest rates didn't save us from that.
Two completely separate issues.
|
>> Agreed, this was a financial services industry management issue, not an EU issue.
>>
>> Look at the UK - let the banks run riot for years unchecked, and then
>> suffer when the wheels inevitably fall off. Our power to set our own interest rates
>> didn't save us from that.
>>
>> Two completely separate issues.
>>
+1
in a nutshell.
|
To the ones who want out of the EC;
What did you expect to get from being a member?
What could membership now bring for you to change your mind and want to remain in?
What would you be prepared to pay or contribute to Europe in return for receiving advantages and benefits?
I rather suspect that everything, nothing and F-all would be the answers.
|
>> To the ones who want out of the EC;
>>
>> What did you expect to get from being a member?
>>
>> What could membership now bring for you to change your mind and want to remain
>> in?
>>
>> What would you be prepared to pay or contribute to Europe in return for receiving
>> advantages and benefits?
>>
>> I rather suspect that everything, nothing and F-all would be the answers.
Gets my vote. Whats not to like about that?
|
>> And where is your evidence that it works well, apart from the form filling? Who
>> really cares about the forms apart from you? If customers want the goods, they'll fill
>> the forms in. Yes, you need the trade agreements or a free trade area, and
>> that needs to be taken into account.
>>
My evidence is based on what I do, day in day out, and have been doing for the best part of twenty years. I arrange for large volumes of freight produced by UK plc - total value per month several millions of pounds - to go all round the World. Getting goods into EU destinations is - at present - quick, easy, and hassle free. If customers want goods they'll buy them from whoever can supply at the lowest cost, on time, and with the least hassle. They don't care about where from as long they have what they want, when they want it, and at a price they can afford. The form filling slows things down and above all COSTS MONEY which someone, somewhere, has to pay for.
|
In understanding the result of a poll one needs to understand who felt inclined to vote in it and who did not, and why that might be so.
That then would allow one to estimate what might happen in a poll that actually mattered, and what opinions might actually be.
All of which differ.
|
Setting aside the I'm-an-ostrich-and-I-think-the-EU-is-working-fine stuff, it clearly isn't, we are teasing this out bit by bit.
Europe will change and has to - as Alanovic says, that implies two types of membership, namely with or without the Euro. The Euro states will have to be much closer than they currently are, governed as a bloc in fact. The terms of that, and also the terms on which the remaining independent states stay as part of a common market are also to be agreed.
Britain's big decision should be does it want to be part of the federal state, or just part of the free trade area? It won't be alone - the last thing that will work is to ram all 27 into the Euro.
The assumption seems to be that the Euro is not for us. I'm actually not frightened of it as long as we can properly buy into the loss of sovereignty - I trust the Germans to run an economy better than we can.
However, that is probably a bridge too far, even for some of the countries already in the Euro, which will be a problem in itself.
Until the treaties are rejigged for a new structure, an in/out referendum is pointless.
In principle Cameron is right, but he must know his timetable is not within his control. The move to a new structure could take much longer, a decade or more, and a meaningful set of "special terms" for Britain only is largely fantasy and almost certainly not deliverable by 2015. If Cameron does by a miracle find himself PM after 2015, he'll be explaining that events mean the date for the referendum will slip.
The other problem is the electorate. I think Mark said in the predecessor thread that few will care enough to understand the issue, so the referendum will essentially be a combination of a popularity contest between the proponents of the two positions, and a vote of confidence in the government of the day.
But, as Zero says, Dave will probably be safely out of office in 2017.
I hope UK can stay in. But it's bad tactics to say we have to, not knowing the terms, just as the French and Germans would be silly not to say that we can't have an a la carte membership.
|
>> Setting aside the I'm-an-ostrich-and-I-think-the-EU-is-working-fine stuff, it clearly isn't, we are teasing this out bit by
>> bit.
Wow hold on a minute,
How about "I will ignore the fact that it appears to be working"
Where is your "clearly its not" ? or are you just going to ignore the evidence it might be? Or does it not fit your " the EU got us into this mess in the first place" contention
|
>> Wow hold on a minute,
>>
>> How about "I will ignore the fact that it appears to be working"
>>
>> Where is your "clearly its not" ? or are you just going to ignore the
>> evidence it might be? Or does it not fit your " the EU got us
>> into this mess in the first place" contention
I thought you'd like that.
Clearly to me it isn't, and to you it is. But we've already argued that in circles.
|
>> Clearly to me it isn't, and to you it is. But we've already argued that
>> in circles.
Well yes one can conveniently ignore the relative and fundamental parts and just blunder on I suppose.
What does need to change is taxation. Specifically company taxation and VAT. We do have the unedifying spectacle of the Irish offering low rates of corporation tax and Luxembourg offering low rates of VAt ending up with Amazon doing 5 billion pounds worth of business in the UK, from a base in Ireland (paying next to zero corporation tax) shipping stuff from Luxembourg and paying next to zero VAT.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Jan 13 at 19:11
|
>> But, as Zero says, Dave will probably be safely out of office in 2017.
Even if he is, there will not be a referendum. I can see the broadcast now
"In 2013 I said that I would hold a yes / no referendum over our membership of the Eu following our renegotiation of terms. I have to tell you now that as those terms have yet to be........."
|
>>"In 2013 I said that I would hold a yes / no referendum over our membership of the Eu following our renegotiation of terms. I have to tell you now that as those terms have yet to be........."<<
God help me Im going to agree with you.
One element which people are overlooking in all their excitement is that he made it clear that no referendum would be held until the crisis in the Eurozone ends - well there are no guarantees it will have ended by 2017, nor that the eventual political structures of the new Eurozone union will have been signed and sealed such is the rate of movement on anything in Brussels - infact it would be a shock if it is all finalised in 5 years and that is not accounting for any new crisis that may crop up in the mean time.
So it is something of a hollow promise with rather alot of get out clauses that he is very likely to be able to use given the conditions he has attached.
I dont expect any referendum to happen because from 2015 anyway as it is Ed Milliband all the way, maybe with a Clegg shaped sidekick.
|
>> tinyurl.com/bl3h6gy
>>
>> (Link to mSN)
>>
Self selecting polls are worthless. Fact.
YouGov's last one said 40% in, 36% out.
|
No overall majority and trouble with 'anti Europe' rebels at all levels?
Promise to re-negotiate our terms of membership and then put it to a referendum?
The last politician to try that was a grammar school boy from Huddersfield. The name was Wilson, Harold Wilson.
|
There will be no meaningful renegotiation - EU leaders and apparatchiks have said so.
The fundamental point is really that a vote for staying in means that you fully accept that this country will become a region of a Federal Europe. (The administrative regions are already set up)
The UK parliament will become the equivalent of a district council.
If you are OK with that, it is your right so to do and you will vote YES. (If it ever comes to a vote!).
I am not OK with it and will vote NO as I did in the previous referendum ostensibly on the subject in 1975, having understood then, despite the deliberate lying of the politicians that the Treaty of Berlin was not really about trade, but about full European political union
|
I'd regard the position for the UK Parliament (and the devolved assemblies) as being considerably more powerful than US States.
I'd be OK with that.
|
I've observed this very interesting thread without contributing up to now.
I'm not a Cameron fan, and agree that he is playing politics with the way that he has presented the referendum issue. However, there WILL have to be a referendum some time on the UK's relationship with the EU. We have had referendums on Elected Mayors, changing the electoral system to AV, and Scotland will soon have one on devolution/independence, so there is no way that the political class will be able to deny the electorate from having their say on an issue that dwarfs all of these.
And the result will be that the UK loses. Either in or out, there will be a large body of people who think that the result is deeply, deeply wrong, and will vow to continue the fight to get it reversed. The civil war will continue. The wound will remain unhealed.
It would have been so much easier if the country had been either overwhelmingly europhile, or overwhelmingly eurosceptic, rather than this half-baked position on Europe which is neither fish nor fowl.
|
so there is no way that the political class will be able to deny the electorate from having their say on an issue that dwarfs all of these.
Labour are favourites to win the next GE.
Miliband has categorically ruled out a referendum...
|
>> Labour are favourites to win the next GE.
>>
To be fair they know their customers.
Promising to borrow more money to keep some in benefits, and using the right phrases when discussing the downtrodden group of the day to appeal to the kindly but misguided senses of those better educted who oddly still believe in the Croydon money trees guarantees them the next term, look here for the odd reference to rich Britain, you couldn't make it up.
Whilst this faction of The Party keep spinning the same victim bull, whilst subsidising/bribing all and sundry who can't or won't stand on their own twp feet (with money borrowed for the diminishing number of hard workers to pay back), the beneficiaries would be mad to vote for anyone else.
Those who don't or won't stand on their own two feet, who believe what they have been told that the country or system has failed them because they haven't made it big...these people will always vote for whoever offers them the continuance of their subsidised easy life.
|
>> Those who don't or won't stand on their own two feet, who believe what they
>> have been told that the country or system has failed them because they haven't made
>> it big...these people will always vote for whoever offers them the continuance of their subsidised
>> easy life.
Good post gb. Exactly how I feel.
The only thing I'd add, is the great chunks of the north where people automatically vote Labour because their fathers and grandfathers did (at a time they probably needed to), yet their own lives, standards, needs, wants etc have changed beyond any comparison to their forebears and are more Tory in outlook.... yet the X in the box goes to Labour each time.
|
>> Good post gb. Exactly how I feel.
>>
>> The only thing I'd add, is the great chunks of the north where people automatically
>> vote Labour because their fathers and grandfathers did (at a time they probably needed to),
>> yet their own lives, standards, needs, wants etc have changed beyond any comparison to their
>> forebears and are more Tory in outlook.... yet the X in the box goes to
>> Labour each time.
I’ve read some old tut in the 12 years or so of using this site and HJ but that takes the biscuit. Do you really believe that Northerners (and I’m one) are that daft? Leeds born Leeds bred, strong in the arm and thick in the head!!
I might equally observe that there are large areas of the outer London suburbs and wider South East where people would be better off under Labour. Yet they habitually elect Tory MP’s led by middle class prejudices and too much reliance on the Mail as ‘news’. Public sector colleagues vote Conservative in spite of the obvious and present risk to their jobs.
There are still areas of Leeds and Manchester where traditional industries linger on. The experience in mining areas and places where the eighties monetarist experiment wiped out work created a real an ongoing animosity to the Tories. The fact that the party has too many folks perceived as braying toffs at the top doesn’t help either.
Minority ethnic communities also tend to throw in their lot with Labour though not without the sort of ‘corruption’ that let Galloway in at Bradford.
And of course large areas of North Yorks, Lancashire, Cumbria and the borders are agricultural and traditionally elect Conservatives
|
>> Labour are favourites to win the next GE.
>>
>> Miliband has categorically ruled out a referendum...
>>
Irrelevant - or do you think that Labour are going to win every election from now until the end of time?
|
>> >> Labour are favourites to win the next GE.
>> >>
>> >> Miliband has categorically ruled out a referendum...
>> >>
>>
>> Irrelevant - or do you think that Labour are going to win every election from
>> now until the end of time?
>>
?
So you think that if Labour win in 2017 and we have no referendum, the Tories will promise one if they win in 2022?
I don't have such touching faith in politicians nor do I think teh world will remain as it is.
By then the EC will either have sorted out its finances ... and we will not want to leave .. or not. If not, then it will no longer look as it is now and we may not want to leave.
But who knows...
|
>> So you think that if Labour win in 2017 and we have no referendum, the
>> Tories will promise one if they win in 2022?
>>
Well, having been a Labour voter (or abstainer) for over 30 years I know rather more about them than the Tories, but it does seem to me as if being ant-EU and pro-Referendum is now hard-wired into their DNA.
They just won't let this go.
>> By then the EC will either have sorted out its finances ... and we will not want to leave .. or not. If not, then it will no longer look as it is now and we may not want to leave.
I think the latter. We will be part of a free-trade area, but not included in the Eurozone or core "United States of Europe". As part of the shakeup that this entails, our political links with the EU will be weaker anyway, I think.
This solution seems to be the one that most people are entirely comfortable with. It's only a few militants who want us to leave altogether, or be part of the US of E.
But like I said, the Tories just can't let it go. (And Labour have painted themselves into a corner over referendums).
|
"But like I said, the Tories just can't let it go. (And Labour have painted themselves into a corner over referendums)"
Most voters are what I would call "dumb" politically in that they believe what they are told rather than reading the facts and drawing their own conclusions..
For examples: Austerity.
Most people are dumb enough to believe Austerity is happening as Gov't policy.
So the Government is spending less. .. by any normal definition.. see tinyurl.com/2bkmdfe
Trouble is : the Government is spending more. So it's not austerity.
Ditto withdrawal from the EC. When times are tough, voters look for an easy option. Many Tory voters are dumb enough (politically) to believe that withdrawing from th EC will magically make things better and save £ billions (and ignore that a fair % of those billions are recycled to the UK as EC funding)..
|
Shamelessly lifted from the Telegraph comments section:
observer20
Today 04:03 AM
"Humphrey, we're losing a lot of ground to UKIP'
'Yes Prime Minister'
"Well, what am I going to do about it?'"
Do? Prime Minister"
'Yes, do. If we don't do something we'll be out at the next election.'
"Ah, yes Prime Minister. Well might I suggest that you promise a renegotiation of our membership of the EU and a referendum on the resulting terms"
''Promise a referendum! Are you mad Humphrey. That would just remind everyone that I did it before and and broke my word. Anyway the Lib-Dems would never stand for it'
"Ah, well, Prime Minister. If you say that it can't happen until after the next election and then long negotiations will be required to negotiate the continuing terms of our relationship before leading, if those negotiations are completed to the satisfaction of all, to the holding of a referendum on our continued membership based on those as yet unspecified terms, then the whole process will take at least 5 years and you won't have actually committed to change anything in particular. The Lib-Dems will be no more after the next election , you will pick up the UKIP votes and no one will find out that actually plan to do nothing at all about our membership until after you have been re-elected
''But isn't that just 'can-kicking' ? And what what will the Europeans say about us committing to a referendum based on re-negotiation Humphrey? I really don't think Angela will allow that.'
"Well Prime Minister I think you'll find that the Europeans are actually very keen on can-kicking and a few words to them explaining that we actually intend to do nothing at all and all we need is a few trivial concessions in 3 or 4 years time on the working time directive and the right to appeal against the ECHJ let's say ..which of course will be largely irrelevant as they can change them back under QMV.. will, I'm sure, immediately gain support and a few helpful words after your announcement"
"'So I get to look like a real statesman,win the next election, get rid of that numpty Clegg and I actually don't have to really do anything at all. Humphrey, you are a genius'
"Yes, Prime Minister"
|
Spot on!
Here's one I received in an email today!
A pretty little girl named Suzy was sitting on the pavement in front of her home.
Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing "FREE KITTENS."
Suddenly a line of big cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a grinning man.
"Hi there little girl, I'm the leader of the Conservatice Party, David Cameron What do you have in the basket?" he asked.
"Kittens " little Suzy said.
"How old are they?" asked Cameron.
Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet."
"And what kind of kittens are they?"
"Conservative supporters," answered Suzy with a smile.
Cameron was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens.
Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two of them agreed that he should return the next day and in front of the assembled media have the little girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, after Cameron had delivered his big speech on the EU, Suzy was again on the pavement outside her house, with her basket of "FREE KITTENS."
When Cameron's motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from BBC, ITV, CNN and Sky News, cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Cameron got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.
"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away."
"Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're UKIP supporters."
Taken by surprise, Dave stammered, "But...but...yesterday, you told me they were CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTERS."
Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open."
|
"Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're UKIP supporters."
And David Cameron smiled and gave the basket a great big kick and said " No need to worry about them any more".
|
Shows how out of touch with reality UKIP are. No-one has named a little girl Suzy since about 1978.
;-)
|
>> "Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're UKIP supporters."
>>
>> And David Cameron smiled and gave the basket a great big kick and said "
>> No need to worry about them any more".
.....as he was arrested and prosecuted by the RSPCA! ;_)
|
|
Actually if a man pulls up in a car and approaches a child, usually he gets carted away in a police car...
|
|
Unless his name is Sir James Wilson Vincent Sovile.
|
There's a serious point there.
A female colleague reports today that last night on her way home she came across a little girl, perhaps six, crying, all alone, wandering in the snow with her toys and some clothes in carrier bags. Of course she went to find out what was happening, and the child said her dad had told her to get out and nobody loved her, so she had. So my colleague managed to get her back to her parents, who were apparently very ungrateful, and effectively told her to mind her own business and the girl was just playing.
So now there's all the machinations about whether/who to report it to, and I have no doubt further something will happen. And my colleague says she cried all night about it.
Anyway, my point is - as a man, had I been on my own in the same circumstances, would I have approached the little girl? No. I'd have rung the police. And then what? Trailed her till the police turned up? Approached her anyway? Shrugged and walked on, duty done?
Horrible situation.
|
>>I'd have rung the police. And then what? Trailed her till the police turned up? <<
Ring them and ask for advice, they record the calls dont they? Our local police seem to respond very quickly and Im sure a wandering child counts as a priority. I wouldnt want to return a child to a suspect home unless I was qualified to make that judgement, we have social services for that.
I understand your reluctance, Im the same - a child in my street said hello to me with a big grin last summer and I didnt even acknowledge them, not worth the risk these days, best to talk to nobody.
|
>> I understand your reluctance, Im the same - a child in my street said hello
>> to me with a big grin last summer and I didnt even acknowledge them, not
>> worth the risk these days, best to talk to nobody.
>>
Please tell me you're not serious.
|
Kids are a funny lot these days. I was was sitting on a bench outside Tescos once, reading the paper, waiting for the other half to finish some quick shopping. Some kids of about 12 I guess were playing about a few yards away. After a while I could sense they were staring at me, and I decided just to go to another bench. I didn't look at them or anything at any point, but as I walked past they shouted "f- paedo"...What can you do in that kind of situation?
I just walked on and ignored it, but I had visions of blue lights and so forth.
|
>>Please tell me you're not serious. <<
If it is a choice between the chance that a neighbour questions why I would be talking to a child I dont know and the child feeling ignored, ill take my chances ignoring the child thanks, the chattering classes dont need more than a shred of anything to start a rumour.
I know a gay man who lives alone that suffered just such a fate and the poor chap suffered greatly for his friendly manner.
|
>> ill take
>> my chances ignoring the child thanks, the chattering classes dont need more than a shred
>> of anything to start a rumour.
Dear heavens above. What a way to be. Heartily agree with AC's post.
|
I'm with AC too. As our girls have grown up over the past 15+ years I've been a very proactive parent in the village so speaking to kids out of politeness is second nature. I'm not shy of shouting at them to stop wrong doing either.
Speaking to teens drinking in the village alleyways and throwing cans in folks gardens comes easy too.
It's because adults are too scared to stand up to kids on the street that we hear abuse of adults by little s---s as crankcase describes.
|
Stu and others, I must say I find it sad that a few high-profile cases, and the generally hysterical and filthy cast of mind that seems to have taken hold on many in this country, should induce such levels of paranoia.
I would never hesitate to speak to a child in the street, especially one alone and in distress. I have often done so in the past. God help anyone who looks at me askance about it too. I know who and what I am and I don't fear being misrepresented by some deluded halfwit.
|
>>Stu and others, I must say I find it sad that a few high-profile cases, and the generally hysterical and filthy cast of mind that seems to have taken hold on many in this country, should induce such levels of paranoia.
I would never hesitate to speak to a child in the street, especially one alone and in distress. I have often done so in the past. God help anyone who looks at me askance about it too. I know who and what I am and I don't fear being misrepresented by some deluded halfwit.<<
It is very sad but I have no intention of leading a crusade against it potentially at my own expense, that kind of mud sticks like no other.
I used to do child minding when I was in my late teens for a friend of the family and the local bobby turned up one day to enquire why I was at the house - a neighbour had called - sure their mum told him to tell the neighbour to mind their own, but that was more than enough to convince me you need to have a cast iron explanation for anything involving children.
|
|
If we are living in a world where an adult is not prepared to assist a child in distress God help us all.
|
This tendency to suspect people of paedophilia and call them names isn't all that new actually.
Nearly 40 years ago, in the week after we moved into our old gaff in the Grove, three or four boys between 10 and 12 appeared outside and seemed to be trying to spit on the ground floor front window, above their heads and five or six feet back behind the front area.
I opened the window and told them to stop it. They jeered offensively, the little carphounds, and one started calling me an old steam iron, an expression new to me which I believe means a nonce. I shut the window and they resumed their (rather impressive actually) spitting. I opened the window again and said if they carried on I was going to come out, take one of them by the ear and call the police. They resumed spitting.
The moment I opened the front door they all fled, never to be seen again. But this paedo stuff isn't new. People are such rubbish.
|
>>my colleague managed to get her back to her parents, who were apparently very ungrateful, and effectively told her to mind her own business and the girl was just playing
Perhaps now is the time for your colleague to report it to social services.
|
>> Perhaps now is the time for your colleague to report it to social services.
Indeed, as I said, it is all going further in various ways apparently.
|
>>>you need to have a cast iron explanation for anything involving children.
No you just need genuine good intentions and make sure you deal with the situation in a way appropriate to the relationship you have to the child... i.e. not the same for a stranger as a nephew for example.
|
I'm sure I'd have no hesitation in helping a child in distress. Our cul de sac is a de facto Play Street and I've picked the odd one up after tumbles in road where Mum and Dad were out of earshot. I've also chatted to kids and helped them with bikes that were damaged or ill maintained.
Sure in circs above I'd be happier if I had Mrs or Miss B with me but I would try and comfort a distressed child rather than follow while calling police on my mobile.
Obviously one needs to be careful over physical contact but I'd take a child by the hand or lift it up to see if it could see a 'lost' parent.
Most parents of kids who've strayed would be panicked or hysterical and very grateful that it was found. In this case there was probably something amiss if only parental shame at unforgivable remarks made in anger.
|
I would help: always have done.
I have also no hesitation on being highly sarcastic to the last lot of 10-12 year old girls who decided to enter the local field via our garden - when there was an entrance meters away. I thanked them for visiting and complained they should have introduced themselves first.
Or chased the vandals who wrecked a neighbour's fence deliberately.. And reported them to the police. (Parents were informed )
Ignoring wrongs/those in distress is an easy way out - and usually those who do then complain about crime and vandalism.
Can't have it both ways.
And frankly if anyone called me a paedo, I would send for the police at once.. Anti social behaviour..
|
I have confronted three gangs of unruly teenagers fairly recently. One group of boys which was victimising and spitting at a smaller boy in a local park, a group of girls relentlessly yakking and fidgeting about in a cinema and a mixed group who were having a gang meeting under a street light outside our old house at about 1 in the morning. No harm came to me. Nothing came of any of these incidents, other than the cessation of the offensive behaviour on each occasion.
As for not coming to the help of a distressed child, well it's unthinkable. I'd just do it.
|
>> And frankly if anyone called me a paedo, I would send for the police at
>> once.. Anti social behaviour..
You're braver than I am. Some years ago, they would have turned up, listened, called me sir and clipped them round the ear, if they were still there.
Some years later they'd have called me mate and ticked both them and me off for wasting their time.
Today - who knows? Arrest of all concerned just in case, which means of course the fingerprint and DNA game, a protracted visit to the station while they sort it out, statements, double checkings...maybe I'm paranoid but I honestly think that's likely enough for the sensible reaction to be "ignore and move away".
|
>>
>> >> And frankly if anyone called me a paedo, I would send for the police
>> at
>> >> once.. Anti social behaviour..
>>
>>
>> You're braver than I am. Some years ago, they would have turned up, listened, called
>> me sir and clipped them round the ear, if they were still there.
>>
>> Some years later they'd have called me mate and ticked both them and me off
>> for wasting their time.
>>
>> Today - who knows? Arrest of all concerned just in case, which means of course
>> the fingerprint and DNA game, a protracted visit to the station while they sort it
>> out, statements, double checkings...maybe I'm paranoid but I honestly think that's likely enough for the
>> sensible reaction to be "ignore and move away".
>>
The police tried ignoring complaints.
Then they kept getting specific complaints naming PCs .
And surprise they now pay more attention.. And our MP - whichever Party - back us. As does our local paper.
|
Of those who have helped a child, how many have actually faced a police officer and had to explain your actions because some big mouth stuck their oar in?
Changed my perspective somewhat. The police are far from friendly in these circumstances and I consider myself lucky that the mother was still there at the time to vouch for me.
The boys were supportive, although telling an officer that he is 'pfd up in the head' isnt as useful as one would imagine! Kids eh.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 24 Jan 13 at 21:07
|
|
So you allow your humanity to be eroded by one incident, which actually didn't have any significant consequences. Sad.
|
>>So you allow your humanity to be eroded by one incident, which actually didn't have any significant consequences. Sad.<<
Hardly, you know my story. From an abused persons perspective, having someone question your own intentions having been through all that is frankly a bit much. Im suprised at how insensitive you are, I thought you were better than that.
|
>>From an abused persons perspective, having someone question your own intentions having been through all that is frankly a bit much
I would have thought you'd have been more aware and more willing to help, not less.
I'm not questioning your intentions, I'm saying that you were wrong.
|
>>I would have thought you'd have been more aware and more willing to help, not less.<<
Im guessing you are not well versed on the effects of abuse then. Google it and get an education as you have no idea what you are on about. The short version is, I have enough to deal with, to live with and even the risk of that sort of accusation is not something I personally can contemplate.
What others do is their own business and if I lived in a small village where everyone knew me then I would feel differently.
|
>>Im guessing you are not well versed on the effects of abuse then
Really? So everybody who encounters you on an online forum can "guess" that you say you've been abused?
In which case, if it is so obvious, why did you bother with writing the thread? As your "guessing" is something that you rely on and clearly you believe others should do the same?
Because without meeting you I know that I could not say for sure, but I'm guessing that your story was not genuine.
How acceptable is "guessing" now? Want to tell me I know nothing and should not be guessing?
|
>>Really? So everybody who encounters you on an online forum can "guess" that you say you've been abused?<<
No, I just told you. My guess was that you dont know much about the subject because you reaction is one of ignorance.
>>Because without meeting you I know that I could not say for sure, but I'm guessing that your story was not genuine.<<
Wow. Nice.
|
>>but I'm guessing that your story was not genuine.<<
>
>Wow. Nice.
Nice? What? The fact that I guess you're deluded? The fact that I believe you somewhere between exaggerate and lie? Maybe you're not and you don't. I think you are and do, but maybe not. I wouldn't know. Any more than you would know about me.
If you don't like assumptions about your experiences made, then refrain from making them about others'.
You have washed your underwear in public. But for some reason you think you are the only one allowed to refer to it. Get over yourself. I have my own differences with John H, but all he did this time was point to something YOU wrote.
Your self-seeking drama irritates me. And its a free world so I'm allowed to be irritated; And by washing it in public, you made the choice to allow me to be so.
Whether its your "I've been abused" stuff, or your "should I leave this forum, lets all vote" thread.
You are attention seeking at the least.
But you want it on your terms.
Tough ****!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:46
|
>>Nice? What? The fact that I guess you're deluded? The fact that I believe you somewhere between exaggerate and lie? Maybe you're not and you don't. I think you are and do, but maybe not. I wouldn't know. Any more than you would know about me <<
You dont like me, so I accept that is your way of expressing it, it is just about the most hurtful thing you could say but I know you are likely to be a decent chap and I just hit a nerve. Fair enough.
>>Your self-seeking drama irritates me. And its a free world so I'm allowed to be irritated; And by washing it in public, you made the choice to allow me to be so. <<
Ok, have as much fun as you like with it.
>>You are attention seeking at the least. But you want it on your terms. Tough ****! <<
I expect you are right and it seems to be coming up too often, im just tired, really really tired of it and it must end today. Time to move on, thanks for the nudge.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 00:45
|
You are still making assumptions about me, but disliking the same about you.
>>You dont like me,
I don't know you. But if I did, and I didn't like you, I have only one way of expressing it. I would tell you so.
I have no opinion as to whether or not I like you.
& fun with it? Just how self-centered and self-pitying are you? Why would i have fun with it, why would it be fun?
Even now your dramatic, sympathy and attention seeking statement of ..
" im just tired, really really tired of it and it must end today. Time to move on," is just more of the same.
No doubt the same motivation that got you to start the "lets vote on whether or not I should stay" thread.
|
>>I have no opinion as to whether or not I like you <<
I dont care whether you do or not.
>>Even now your dramatic, sympathy and attention seeking statement of .. <<
Oh for Pete's sake grow up you silly man. Im tired of this crap, with you, with other people, it isnt good for the forum or the people on it so just shut up about it.
Either you give this crap up or I will leave the forum, you choose, we either shake hands on it or not? I wont ask again.
|
I don't give a crap what you do. Stay, go, whatever, its a free world and you should do whatever you wish.
Why on earth would you dump the responsibility for what you do on me?
To be honest I though your words of "time to move on" meant you already had.
Stop being so dramatic.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 24 Jan 13 at 21:07
|
|
Ok thanks for the answer.
|
I don't care who started it. I don't even care what the row is about.
Just shut up arguing, put your willies back in your trousers, and return to discussing things in a polite manner.
Thank you.
|
|
Could I borrow some bigger trousers please?
|
|
Not got anything in corduroy, I suppose?
|
>>>Im suprised at how insensitive you are, I thought you were better than that.
Sorry that is a daft thing to say.
On a forum each thread stands alone and is for everyone from the longest serving to the newbie to read and comment equally. No-one knows who anyone really is (by and large) on here and there is no obligation on anyone to either believe or remember past statements from any poster.
If you feel you have said anything that needs you to be treated any differently to any other poster then you made a serious error claiming/revealing that information.
|
>> then you made a serious error claiming/revealing that information.
Word for word, spot on. Every word.
|
>> So you allow your humanity to be eroded by one incident, which actually didn't have
>> any significant consequences. Sad.
Sad indeed, but in the area of child abuse generally a lot of people think that where the police and social services look for a problem they'll find the evidence for it, and in general coming to their attention for any reason is an extremely bad idea.
I have never forgotten the Orkneys episode over 20 years ago, which made a great impression on me when my children were about 5 and 9 years old.
I would be very circumspect myself, though I would not ignore a child in distress.
|
>>I would help: always have done.
About 4 years ago I was in Homebase (oh, the shame). I saw a little girl, about 5 I suppose, wandering around and crying.
She'd lost her parents but was sure that they were still in the store. We went to the tills, but its Homebase so help was lacking. So then we walked around the store.
We found her parents at the back of the [quite large] store. They seemed like decent people, although they hadn't noticed their daughter's absence.
I was treated with an enormous amount of suspicion and they couldn't get the child away from me quickly enough, despite the fact that one of my own girls was with me.
I;d do it again, but I'd take the precaution of telling someone what I was doing, or shouting loudly so that people noticed.
And whilst I am quite sure that nothing could possibly have come of it whatever they thought, it was a very uncomfortable feeling.
|
This is a serious problem for chaps, i'd look after a little one in distress (i hope) and i do speak to various of the friendly children locally, but in the back of my mind is being aware that it could be viewed differently.
I've mentioned before my BiL, a more sturdy reliable proper geezer you couldn't find, he picked up and handed back something a little one in a puchchair had dropped, only to be met by the bulging eyed mother (if you could call it that) calling him a pervert, in blinking Tescos of all places, in front of other people.
I really don't know how i'd have reacted but how we all wish my Mrs had been there, that idiotic woman would have learned exactly what she is and would never have forgotten the episode.
What created this monster of extremes.
|
You help the child, every time. None of you could live with the consequences if something happened to them if you didn't.
So what the parents or people may be suspicious? Thats their "bad" as they say, and if the old bill gets involved? there will be plenty of evidence to back you up if you behaved in an appropriate manner.
Its a no brainer.
|
I note that serving police officers here haven't yet commented on this. But I also remember that they sometimes complain that the police are increasingly overburdened with 'guidelines' or standard procedures for more and more situations and that commonsense is often overruled, sometimes actively discouraged, for fear of later complications arising out of retrospective claims by individuals.
Our society is 'sophisticated' in a way, but in a bad, feral, American way. People think they know about things but their discourse is nearly always grossly oversimplified in the image of the public discourse fed to them by media and politicians who should know better, but are cynical and don't.
My own view is that the powers that be are doing more harm than good with this arrogant and patronising behaviour. 'Simplifying' complex issues simply deludes people into thinking they understand them when they don't, with all this resulting stupid confusion and nastiness. If things were told like they are people would either grapple with the complexity or realise it was beyond them and keep quiet.
We do need reform quite urgently. Not of laws - they can always be ignored after all - but of attitudes. Can't imagine how it's going to happen though. Looks hopeless.
|
To again bring things to a trivial and personal level, we have noticed that a particular public event that we have attended every year more or less forever has altered.
It used to be years ago that if a child was lost the tannoy would say "Billy Smith has lost his mum, could she come and get him". Then it changed slightly to "a child is here looking for their parents". Then it changed to "if you get lost, come to the meeting point". Now it's "remember to make some arrangement if you should get lost".
A small point I know, but just seems indicative of the idea that Something Dreadful might happen outweighing a service that must have been useful.
|
To again bring things to a trivial and personal level, we have noticed that a particular public event that we have attended every year more or less forever has altered.
Stoke on Trent Council - a bunch or proven incompetents - as on TV - prove your case.
A bunch of OAPs hire a council hall to run a party. Happens yearly
Now the council insist they hire (Council employees) minders for it *. Never had any history of problems.
Result: OAPs can't afford it and will not happen.
* at great expense as Stoke - being grossly incompetent - are effectively bust... No guesses for the Party affiliation...
|
>> I note that serving police officers here haven't yet commented on this. But I also
>> remember that they sometimes complain that the police are increasingly overburdened with 'guidelines' or standard
>> procedures for more and more situations and that commonsense is often overruled, sometimes actively discouraged,
>> for fear of later complications arising out of retrospective claims by individuals.
It's not just that...if you don't do something nowadays...you run the risk of a neglect of duty allegation, so you cover your 'arris, even if that means doing something that your gut reaction says isn't how it should be...e.g. nick both parties when one is glaringly obviously the one at fault.
Politicians want to 'measure' the police more, so they set targets. If you don't reach your targets, you are inefficient..so you cover your 'arris...e.g. prosecute or Caution someone who ought to be NFA'd
If you want to get on in your organisation, you have to prove your worth and steer clear of complaints...(so you get my drift now).
The modern police are becoming more and more risk averse..which is sad. Politicians, press police complaints system and public all have their part to play. You get what you deserve ultimately....and I wouldn't post this if i didn't believe it, as you well know, i'm no longer in it.
|
>>You help the child, every time.
I'm with Zeddo.
And if I was in Mark's position I would be suspicious that the parents appeared suspicious of me... What are they hiding potentially?
Abusers see abuse in others where it doesn't exist.
Anyone of the forum be anything other than thankful if a middle-aged dude brought your missing child over to you in a store? If your first thought is "I wonder if he's a pervert" then YOU are probably a closet Jimmy Savile ;-)
|
>>And if I was in Mark's position I would be suspicious that the parents appeared suspicious of me..
I dunno. Its so difficult to know. Perhaps the child had had problems before, perhaps they'd had a bad experience, who knows.
Like I said, they seemed decent enough although hadn't noticed their child had been missing. And the child was probably with me for 10 - 15 minutes.
What I would do though, should it happen again, is cause a commotion so there could be no suspicion of me trying to be sneaky.
|
|
I just begin to wonder if this descent into personal insults is designed to bring a thread to a halt.
|
|
I think you'l find you started the drift with your story of Dave Cameron grooming the child with the kittens, Roger.
|
No it's because it's more interesting than the initial thread.
UKIP's been neutered by idiot-boy Cameron and his unworkable nonsense.
Nothing to see here any more other than willy-waving!
|
>> thankful if a middle-aged dude brought your missing child over to you in a store? If your first thought is "I wonder if he's a pervert" then YOU are probably a closet Jimmy Savile ;-)
That's certainly the size of it Lygonos, except for the last bit which is too severe smiley or no. People are helpless, hysterical and with their minds confused and dirtied by their imperfect reading of rather malevolent media. Perhaps they even suspect themselves of nonce tendencies because nippers are so sweet and smooth that they want to stroke their heads.
|
I imagine the curt behaviour when the missing child is returned could be accounted for by embarrassment at having lost the child in the first place.
Maybe there's also a mixture of anger and relief getting in the way of the expected response - ISTR whenever I got lost as a child the first thing that happened on being repatriated was being told off for going missing!
Of course there might be a different kind of parent who just doesn't give a toss, or doesn't worry about these things, or didn't regard the child as "missing".
|
>> I;d do it again,
...and so would I. I couldn't give two hoots if some thought my actions to be a negative, the vast majority of folk would think it a positive.
|
|
The repercussions from all directions of not getting it right on the odd occasion have introduced a mentality of ramping the incident up to begin with and then ramping it down when everything is thoroughly looked at, audited and justified. However from a 'golden hour' standpoint that is also most effective way of dealing with an incident otherwise a lot of evidence can be lost.
|
|
Well as most child abusers tend to be relatives, ,, I will continue as is..
|
Skit on Radio Four's Broadcasting House this morning about the news immediately after a vote for 'out'.:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q7gvg
About 11 minutes in.
Absolutely brilliant. The following discussion was quite illuminating as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 27 Jan 13 at 20:42
|
If there was a vote tomorrow, how would you all vote?
As things stand now, i'd be an 'Out'.
If things were to noticeably improve i.e. the EU agreed to Britain having some substantial powers back and we used our membership for trade purposes, I might be persuaded to vote 'In'.
If we came out and there was a difficult time to start with, so be it, then we move forward
unshackled by others and trade as we always used to.
It greatly annoys me that our Parliament gets overruled by Brussels and that we help fund some of the shameful waste that is going on.
|
>>If there was a vote tomorrow, how would you all vote?<<
Good shout - I'm for a €uropean trading block (EEC) but against a Federal €urope.
So, I'd vote out if it was put to the vote mañana.
|
>> If we came out and there was a difficult time to start with, so be
>> it, then we move forward
>> unshackled by others and trade as we always used to.
Except, it wont happen, we cant go back to "trading as we always used to be" international trade is much more cutthroat.
All car factories, closed and moved abroad, Banking and insurance moved to Frankfur
We would be in a poor position, nothing to sell, in debt and going forward becomes going down the crapper faster than you can blink.
And what "powers" exactly have we lost to the EU that is bad?
|
Britain risks seeing its standard of living hit if it leaves the European Union, according to the head of the world’s largest bond fund.
tinyurl.com/bbdgohf
I am amazed no-one has quoted it..
|
And anyone who denies that UKIP has some fruitcakes in it should read this..
(warning: references to necrophilia may be disturbing)
tinyurl.com/abayyvb
|
>>And anyone who denies that UKIP has some fruitcakes in it should read this..<<
Except he was removed for saying just this kind of rubbish, along with some equally easy going views on incest, rather than the same-sex marriage stuff which he tried to portray as the reason, all of which was reported some weeks ago.
UKIP also supports a transferable married tax allowance for couples in civil partnerships, funny how nobody in the media mentions that, but they can dig out a lunatic like Neville who has since left the party in a blaze of 'glory'.
Last edited by: FoR on Thu 31 Jan 13 at 10:10
|
>> I am amazed no-one has quoted it..
I'm not. He's not really saying very much. All we can infer is that it wouldn't be good for him.
|
Tut! Tut! Zero, this won't do!
You've painted your picture of what will happen if Britain leaves the EU - and pretty bad it looks too!
However in the interests of balance you should also paint a picture of what happens if we stay IN. That's not exactly a view of "broad, sunlit uplands" (as a famous man once said) either.
All you can really claim is that it is the lesser of two evils. (And I am not saying that you are wrong)
The EU will not stay where it is. It will move inexorably forward towards a federation of states where all power is centralized in Brussels. All states will have to be fully part of this structure, or leave. No opt-out from the Euro, Schengen, or anything else. You have to be fully in or nothing.
Unlike UKIP, I am not against this in principle. Given sufficient democratic checks and balances, and a fair and proportionate level of influence into it by the UK, I have no problem with it.
But that's just the problem, isn't it? The "democratic deficit" of the EU is well-documented, and the UK has precious little influence in the EU club, partly due to its own fault in the past in hacking off potential allies.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:22
|
The Europe debate: In or out or who cares? - Stuu
