Daily Express running a petition to force a debate on EU withdrawl.
Apparently under the govt's own rules, yes i know they make them as they go along, a hundred thousand votes means a debate must be heard.
Probably P ing in the wind, but if like me you think the EU is a sinister and increasingly dangerous monster then at least sign this.
If there's millions of votes and still no debate, then you'll know where you stand with this govt.
www.express.co.uk/web/referendum
|
>> but if like me you think the EU is
>> a sinister and increasingly dangerous monster then at least sign this.
I dont
>> www.express.co.uk/web/referendum
So I wont.
|
|
Easier to blame UK's problems on sinister monsters than face the facts.
|
...So I wont...
So I have done.
I don't blame anyone, but I do believe we have a better chance of sorting out the mess out rather than in.
|
I don't buy the Express (is she dead?), so I wouldn't know about this campaign.
I believe we're much better out than in.
|
Ive been pondering this EU question for a while.
What strikes me the most is how the pro-europeans, rather than welcome any discussion about the subject, try to close debate and in this country especially, there is a general air of not rocking the boats no matter what.
It seems to me to be somewhat undemocratic to not take peoples questions and concerns seriously by stifling debate rather than actively engaging in it, people fight their corner if they think its worthy.
Ive always thought that in life, one should ALWAYS strive to re-examine what you do and how you do it at various points, never, ever should you blindly follow one path without frequently reminding yourself of why you are on that path.
Its telling that when it comes to the EU, UKIP, an otherwise non-party, have a fair few MEPs, which if you take them as a general indicator of the people who vote for them, the pro-european message isnt washing with a fair number of people, so either they are wrong or they dont sell it well.
I really dont know about the EU, my generation have grown up with it, my overriding impression is that it suffers massive mission creep year by year.
Ive never understood the notion that we in this country are somehow incapable of forming our own laws and regulation, why are we so inept that the EU must decide these things for us, it seems bizarre that we cant arrive at the same conclusions ourselves. Its like paying someone to tell you to eat your dinner and how you might go about it.
Maybe its because in the UK Im so used to our politics being so fluid, with MPs and ministers having to constantly justify what they do, that when it seems that the EU doesnt feel it is answerable to anyone, that worries me.
At the moment we seem to be in Europe but not really a part of it. I dont much like the halfway house way things are, I feel it should either be a superstate and everyone surrenders their sovereignty to a central government or you have a purely economic arrangement. Currently its hard to know who is really driving this ship.
But regardless of the issues surrounding it, you must never stop asking questions and in a democracy, those in power should never shy away from answering them - to do so is to derail the whole democratic ideal where what the people think actually matters, which ironically, we seem set on exporting elsewhere in the world.
Us, hypocritical? Not much.
|
I would like to see a referendum on EU withdrawal, because it's a topic in which I'm interested, but mostly because I'm confident my view would win.
But we elect legislators to legislate, so it's daft to have a referendum on every issue.
Self-interest by the political class dictates we are unlikely to be given one on the EU.
Were I on the EU gravy train, I wouldn't want to get off.
|
Don't blame me - I voted against joining in the first place.
We should have expanded EFTA - free trade with anyone.
|
Excellent post by Stu.
I don't think our parliaments would want to go for full handover to the EU, unless they'd been given the nod for their career transfers.
Strange democracy that tries to stifle discussion and majority view, isn't that the way of the fascist or dictator.
I voted no too CP, as did everyone able to vote at the time i've ever asked.
|
>> Strange democracy that tries to stifle discussion and majority view,
You have proof its the majority view?
isn't that the way of
>> the fascist or dictator.
>>
>> I voted no too CP, as did everyone able to vote at the time i've
>> ever asked.
Well clearly a Majority voted different.
|
Of those that voted differently only a few dare admit it now:)
Pat
|
I voted for..
You would need to rewrite economic history to prove that EFTA was the correct choice..
And it's all very well to call the EC undemocratic.. Lets see:
Whose MPs refused to release details of expenses for decades until forced to do so?
Which Parliament refuses a vote on capital punishment despite all surveys showing a majority in favour?
Which Parliament voted for a war where it was clear the PM lied and his Cabinet on the whole supinely agreed to follow? And the Opposition did the same?
Which Parliament allowed gerrymandering of seat sizes so fewer votes were needed to elect MPs of one party?
Which Parliament turned a blind eye to large scale bribery by a company and stopped the investigations?
People who call the EC corrupt are obviously of the same persuasion as a great one eyed British admiral...
Last edited by: madf on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 12:40
|
>>
>>
>> You would need to rewrite economic history to prove that EFTA was the correct choice..
>>
>>
>>
Exactly. We'd have been writing history instead of reading it.
|
It's possible still to retain a little self-esteem and admit to having voted to join the EU, by arguing that there's nothing wrong with it that can't be better fixed by being inside.
But does anyone now argue that we ought to have joined the Euro, and would have been even more uniquely placed to withstand the crash if only we had had our economy shackled to Greece, etc?
|
>> It's possible still to retain a little self-esteem and admit to having voted to join
>> the EU, by arguing that there's nothing wrong with it that can't be better fixed
>> by being inside.
I don't think anyone actually voted to JOIN the EU.
IIRC the referendum was AFTER we joined, and asked if we wanted to stay in.
I think most people voted to stay in, thinking of the monetary cost we suffered joining, and the cost of getting back out.
IMHO the cost of staying in was larger than if we had got out....
EDIT......We joined in 73, under the Tories, and the referendum was in 75, under Labour.
|
I just wished we'd joined the Euro too...
tinyurl.com/3zgpyx6
|
|
We are waiting for it to reach parity before we join.
|
In reality, it has. A cashpoint in Spain recently offered me a rate of 0.98 cents to the pound.
It shows what a pickle the UK is in when its currency isn't really increasing in value against one which is (at the moment) crippled.
Really dodged a bullet in not allowing Tony to drag us in to the Euro though.
|
This debate is going on for ever.We are in due to a referendum which the majority of UK people voted in favour.
The UK is part of Europe always has been and always will be. The majority of the population of the UK are Europeans.
And if we like it or not Germany is the powerhouse of Europe at the moment they pay most in the kitty.
Lets all be friends make love not war.;)
|
Hmmm and all those UK drivers of German designed cars? Which way will they vote?
The British car industry collapses and is largely replaced by European cars and people claim we would have been better off in EFTA?
Give me strength...:-)
Why would anyone invest any money in the UK car industry if its major export market is the EU and we are no longer part of it? Answer: they won't...
Last edited by: madf on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 16:37
|
|
That doesn't only apply to the car industry, madf. We would be utterly banjaxed outside of the EU.
|
No, we wouldn't.
Just as valuable a statement as "we would be banjaxed outside the EU."
|
Honda would up ships and walk away, ditto Nissan and GM, Ford would stop making transits here.
The French would charge us more for our Electricity and water. The Russians would charge as more for gas.
Think we are going to trade with Australia? forget it they have a home market in the far east.
Yes Banjaxed outside the EU. Forget Efta, its toothless and powerless.
|
Just because being in the EU has its advantages, it doesnt mean you gleefully ignore its failings.
I chuckle to myself sometimes, that in the end, Germany appears to have won the war anyway, bring on Prime Minister Merkel!
|
...Honda would up ships and walk away, ditto Nissan and GM, Ford would stop making transits here...The French would charge us more for our Electricity and water. The Russians would charge as more for gas...Think we are going to trade with Australia? forget it they have a home market in the far east...
Usual series of bold, baseless, claims dressed up as fact.
Usual pro-European scaremongering drivel.
Trade would not stop if we left the EU, same as it didn't begin when we joined.
Other countries trade with us because they want to, and that would continue, as it's always done.
|
>> ...Honda would up ships and walk away, ditto Nissan and GM, Ford would stop making
>> transits here...The French would charge us more for our Electricity and water. The Russians would
>> charge as more for gas...Think we are going to trade with Australia? forget it they
>> have a home market in the far east...
>>
>> Usual series of bold, baseless, claims dressed up as fact.
>>
>> Usual pro-European scaremongering drivel.
>>
>> Trade would not stop if we left the EU, same as it didn't begin when
>> we joined.
>>
>> Other countries trade with us because they want to, and that would continue, as it's
>> always done.
Typical havent thought it through anti EU garbage/
They would trade with us OK, but under their terms. Not favourable to us.
|
...They would trade with us OK, but under their terms...
Common sense suggests they do this already.
I just can't see our trading relationships changing massively if we leave, same as they didn't when we joined.
The world has also moved on a little bit.
China - outside the EU, obviously - appears to sell its goods easily enough to EU countries.
|
>> China - outside the EU, obviously - appears to sell its goods easily enough to
>> EU countries.
Suggest you research what trade barriers are in place with China at the moment. Quite a few.
And then research "technical and standards requirements" that are in place (supposedly to maintain standards but in truth to stifle trade)
|
We didnt get the EU budget on our terms, what makes you think we get trade on our terms?
I thought you said before that the UK doesnt make any net financial gain from being in the EU? You changed your mind now so you can be beastlie to Iffy? :-)
|
And can I just say, Heil Merkel!! :-p
might aswell start practicing now...
|
|
Where did I say we make a net financial gain in this thread? I did say it would be worse.
|
Gosh, must be old age but I always thought situations were your urinating your cash down a drain wasnt a good thing, now I hear it is. Its a new world I tell ya.
I can now look to have a negative balance sheet as a source of national pride, its the future.
|
Let's have a good laugh at today's news from the E.U.!
tinyurl.com/4yyqrxa
(Profanity warning)
|
|
There, thats really made those who are anti EU seem like sensible logical people people who have thought through the issue.
|
Britain's biggest industry is Financial Services.. it contributes about 20% of all UK taxes.
The French and Germans have far smaller financial services and would love to cut London down to size.
hands up anyone who seriously thinks the EU would let the UK Financial Services industry enjoy the same access to their markets as now..
So that's our biggest industry and the UK's largest source of Government income stuffed.
A pity the anti Eu people do not appear to think through consequences.. NOT unintended but obvious to anyone who looks at economics with some realism.
By all means leave the EU and cut Government spending by 25% - and don't quote me all the stuff about our EU payments : there are enough EU grants around to lose to halve the effect of not paying any EC fees..
And of course, there are other minor issues.. Like can anyone seriously expect the UK to retain its seat in the UN as a top member when it's no longer part of the EC? No political support from anyone..
The odd remaining colonial outpost like Gib look vulnerable..
We could of course send all the Poles back home and most of our factories would stop because UK citizens would rather be on benefits than work..But then the country could no longer afford benefits.. so I guess that's sorted then.
The Scots would secede - no point in them staying outside the EC..
But when you see the calibre of some of the politicians who support leaving you realise none of this has been thought through at all - let alone thoroughly. Mostly it's grass being greener elsewhere and blaming others for our failures to accept reality... (see Wedgie Benn for a start)
Last edited by: madf on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 20:39
|
So is there any practical argument for not becoming one European state under one government?
|
|
there is no practical argument against, but plenty of other nationalistic ones.
|
Yes - the others are all foreigners!
(Dons tin hat and waits for incoming!)
|
|
About as foreign as the Welsh or Scottish to be fair.
|
...About as foreign as the Welsh or Scottish to be fair...
If we can get out of the EU, who knows what else we can achieve?
|
>> there is no practical argument against, but plenty of other nationalistic ones.
>>
And that's one of the biggest obstacles to the European project - the absence of a (wonderful word) "demos".
|
Theres no such thing as an obstacle in the EU, they dont recognise such things.
Anyone who is an obstacle will be sent for 're-education'.
|
Unlike the majority on here I am very relaxed about the concept of a United Europe, though I do want significant reform of the EU as an organization first.
However, to reassure those who are not so keen to see the UK as part of this, I can say that I am certain that there will be a referendum in this country on the EU within the next five years, and the sceptics will prevail. This will not mean the UK actually leaving the EU, but it will be one of several countries who are on the outer ring, rather than at the central core.
The EU always moves forward to "ever closer union" - that is an inbuilt dynamic - and the current economic crisis has brought the question of fiscal union to a head. If the Euro is to survive in any form at all then fiscal union will have to take place. The question has been deferred because it is a big step to take and is as much emotive as it is economic. But it can't be dodged much longer, and once it is out in the open and being planned then the UK won't be able to pretend any more that the EU is really just a glorified trading agreement but will have to define its relationship with the EU once and for all.
A two-speed EU will emerge, even thought the European idealists don't want this. The UK will be one of the slow group. I suspect that both the UK and the fast group will be happy with this arrangement.
|
>> Theres no such thing as an obstacle in the EU, they dont recognise such things.
>>
>> Anyone who is an obstacle will be sent for 're-education'.
>>
Nineteen-eightyfour?
|
>> Lets all be friends make love not war.;)
>>
What a great point to make, didn't the EU grow out of Europe's desire not to wage war on each other again ?
Observing the UK from afar I see it as European and without a place in the world outside Europe (Australia, India and the US certainly don't need the UK any more), to leave the EU would possibly condemn it to irrelevance in the world economy. staying in the EU might delay this, however since I now see the rise of China at first hand I expect that Europe (and the US) can expect a new world order sooner rather than later.
Outside the Euro the Pound allows the UK some flexibility and the ability to avoid the bind that Greece or Ireland find themselves in, outside the EU what would the UK's export market be ?
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 07:02
|
>> I just wished we'd joined the Euro too...
>>
>> tinyurl.com/3zgpyx6
>>
But that's looking it as an investor, as if we had simply joined and then purchased trillions of Euros hoping to cash them in if they rose in value.
We are free to join in speculation in any currency we chose, or gold. We could convert our entire reserves into Zimbabwe dollars on the view that it can only go up.
But a better analogy for the Euro might be it's like having a secure private electricity supply, and then finding that lots of squatters have all tapped into it, losing us money and voltage so that our own things don't work properly either.
|
In fairly recent (by geological criteria) times, we in this island are NOT Europeans!
Granted, we have had largely European races as immigrant peoples who have gone to make up our current ethnicity.
Over the years since the last successful invasion of greater Britain by the Normans, (themselves of Northern stock), our country has developed its own unique identity until very recently un-diluted by mass immigration of any sort.
It has taken much effort over the years to prevent this country being taken over and absorbed into the European hegemony by Continental Europe based despots (Napoleon, Hitler et al).
It seems a great pity, to me, if politicians, by stealth, manipulation of currencies and people's fears should achieve that which force of arms failed to do.
|
>> In fairly recent (by geological criteria) times, we in this island are NOT Europeans!
>> Granted, we have had largely European races as immigrant peoples who have gone to make
>> up our current ethnicity.
>> Over the years since the last successful invasion of greater Britain by the Normans, (themselves
>> of Northern stock), >>
>>
Total and absolute non sequitur.. proves the illogicality of the first statement...
|
We are not European in the sense that we are not and since the physical separation of these islands from the European Continent (excepting the already mentioned successful invasions, fiercely resisted, I might add) have not been, part of the European land mass, it's various political philosophies, ways of life, attitudes or national entities.
|
SO it was time we stopped being so insular and parochial, once we became a pathetic little island with a failed empire, and broadened our outlook and allegiances.
You know it cost this island dear, ruined in fact, to fight Hitler. We had to fight him because there was no European unity and we had no influence there. You need to study cause and affect dear boy.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 11:30
|
Here where I live background Vikings can still tell by the old sidewinder fishing ships which had a similair design to their long ships.
I have Swiss and Greek blood in my veins Father side fron Phoenicers.Mother side Swiss.
This is a great Island whith lots of diversity the parochial bit is right.Lets find the positives about us all in Europe.I sound like a preacher.;)
|
What a complete misunderstanding of history. England has always been closely linked to Europe and its destiny. For hundreds of years our kings claimed sovereignty over large part of what is now France. The wealth of this country for hundreds of years before the growth of the Empire was built on trade with Europe, mainly in woollen cloth. We have involved ourselves in European politics and wars for centuries to protect our own interests. Our language, and culture are firmly European. We have never been isolationist
As for the invasions "fiercely resisted'' I think you will find that the last invasion of England was in 1688 by a Dutch army headed by William of Orange. He landed at Brixham with 15,000 men and marched on London to seize the crown, virtually unopposed.
|
King Billy and all the trouble in Ireland:)
They still live in the past the Orange men brigade when will they ever move on.
|
Looking to the future, I dont think things will stay the same.
Certainly on the continent, ive heard from relatives more than a few mutterings about the nationalist movements gaining popularity and the attitude of the eurocrats is the fuel for nationalism.
So either the EU will creep into a superstate by various signed documents and it will all be ok, or there will be a backlash, in Europe we have a history of revolution as much as evolution, it will be curious to see which way it goes.
I for one can see positives in either outcome, but its curious that Germany is the kingmaker, which is quite likely the psychological reason the Brits are so suspicious of the EU. That said, id sooner the Germans run things than most other nationalities.
|
Very hard working people the Germans they tend to be a bit serious but that is their way.Which should be respected.These movements can be dangerous Geert Wilders is one of them .I have heard his debates and people who look at things black and white like what he says.
Iam a believer that if you emigrate to a country you should except their way of live.I don't like to see woman cover their faces in a country which it isn't the norm.
This is not being racist just my believe.We don't want anybody running anything nobody is in charge in this group we are a community.
|
I don't have a problem with anyone behaving as they think fit, so long as no ones hurt by it and the women are not being forced to cover themselves, i really couldn't care less.
So long as others extend the same courtesy to me to behave as i think fit then we're all happy, especially if all contribute net to the country they chose to live in.
Why is Geert Wlders, or any other nationalists viewpoint dangerous?, he's as entitled to his opinion as anyone else, if others find his views attractive then the current mantra might just be off key.
Silencing a voice makes that voice worth listening to.
|
Inward investment is responsible for 30% of this country's economic output, and capital stock invested in the UK by overseas companies currently stands at £720 billion (US$ 1 trillion).
A significant part of the package that makes the UK an attractive investment prospect is our EU membership, and the access to EU markets this provides. If this were lost, it's logical to assume a good chunk of this investment, together with the jobs and tax revenue it provides would be lost too.
Just to mention the motor industry, I couldn't imagine BMW keeping Plant Oxford open if its output were suddenly subject to EU import quotas or tariffs. Or Honda in Swindon. Nissan in Sunderland. And what about the fact that, according to Ernst & Young, the UK is currently home to over half of all European HQ operations? What company will keep a European HQ in a country that isn't part of the EU?
There are things about the EU that annoy me greatly, (corruption and dodgy accounts to name but two) but these pale into insignificance next to the cost of pulling out. Unpalatable as it is, the British economy simply wouldn't cope with EU withdrawal.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 16:01
|
You appear.. to have those nationalist vieuws .
Did you see the small documetary film Gordon? Did you get the jest how people can work and live together without as somebody mentioned parochial vieuws.
Geert Wilders looks for trouble so did Pim Fortuin.Pim Fortuin had everybody up in arms in Rotterdam and his vieuws created a lot of racial tension.
You are entitled to your opinion I couldn't care less either.
|
>> I don't have a problem with anyone behaving as they think fit, so long as
>> no ones hurt by it and the women are not being forced to cover themselves,
>> i really couldn't care less.
I suppose it depends what you mean by forced, which depends upon what real options they have, and what are the consequences of not covering up.
But, yes, it is one of those situations where it is very hard to tell the difference between choice and duress.
|
>> until very recently un-diluted
>> by mass immigration of any sort.
Utter balderdash. Immigration to Britain has been a constant ever since it was discovered by by migrating tribes of early humans.
It's that which has made our stock strong, intelligent and inventive, not isolation and closed borders.
|
...until very recently un-diluted by mass immigration of any sort...utter balderdash...
Mass immigration has only been possible since the advent of mass international travel, which is relatively recent.
|
|
So how come we mass populated North America, wiping out the indigenous population, before mass international travel?
|
...So how come we mass populated North America, wiping out the indigenous population, before mass international travel?...
No idea.
But it's a simple statement of fact that the areas of our inner cities which are now predominantly 'immigrant' have only become so in the last 50 years.
|
>> No idea.
Then you must retract your assertion.
>> But it's a simple statement of fact that the areas of our inner cities which are now
>> predominantly 'immigrant' have only become so in the last 50 years.
There have been areas of our major cities dominated by "immigrant" populations for hundreds of years.
That's the simple statement of fact here.
|
...There have been areas of our major cities dominated by "immigrant" populations for hundreds of years...
I'd like to know how, given that most of our inner cities were little more than villages 150 years ago.
Look at what remains of the original housing stock, it's almost all Victorian, before then, it was fields.
Taking London as an example, the likes of Hackney, Harlesden, and Southall did not exist in the way we see today before the Industrial Revolution.
|
Never heard of the Rookeries of St Giles, for instance? Spacious, luxurious housing is a farily new invention.
Our population was far, far smaller hundreds of years ago, so numbers immigrating were of course smaller in terms of absolute quantity, but it was always happening, and always influential.
Our modern connurbations were indeed mostly small villages not so long ao, however there were great cities (viewed by the standards of their times) in this country which have fallen by the wayside, disappeared, reverted to being relatively small towns. Colchester, Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum if you prefer), Bath, the list is endless. There were always plenty of places to accomodate significant immigrant populations, and they always did.
|
James the First King of England was a Scot: the first of the Stuart Kings.
They were deposed by William of Orange : a Dutchman..
Who was eventually replaced by a bunch of Germans: the Hannoverians
then the Saxe Coburgs...
Mass immigration:
The Normans 11th century.
The Hugenots 17th Century
the Jews
the Germans
Read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_immigration_to_Great_Britain
Those who go on about a lack of mass immigration into Britain before the 20th century show their ignorance of British history.. Small Englanders? Nope.
Ignorant Englanders... more like... :-)
Last edited by: madf on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 11:26
|
What may or may not have happened in the 11th and 17th centuries is irrelevant to those of us alive today.
Many of our inner city schools have 90 per cent plus pupils whose first language is not English.
Even 40 years ago, 90 per cent of pupils' first language in those schools would have been English.
That is mass immigration, and that is recent.
|
>> That is mass immigration, and that is recent.
Isn't there a graph somewhere that shows the level of immigration into the UK, this must be pretty easily accessible information.
Oh, here we go:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922
|
...isn't there a graph somewhere...
The graph shows a steep rise since the 1950s - now there's a surprise.
|
We are not debating that. This part of the thread was started by Roger, then supported by your good self, asserting that Britain has been some kind of immigration-free zone since 1066, and that mass immigration had been impossible before the 20th century, which is patently untrue and has been easily disproven.
Immigration (and mass immigration) has always been a feature of human existence on this island, and those who deny its existence between 1066 and 1945, and seek to use their lies to propound right wing ideologies in this day and age, are at best ignorant and at worst downright dangerous.
|
Still dont see what history has to do with anything but you guys argue away.
What matters is not the past but the future because what you do right now affects the future.
Numbers, services, space, structural planning. Those are things which matter.
With the best will in the world, if you increase numbers, into a fixed space, there will come a point where the standards which are possible with a certain density of people are no longer possible as you increase the density.
As it is we dont have the resources to educate children properly ( 33% I think it was ), nor to police the population, we lack housing stock, we cant produce enough food and currently we dont have enough jobs. The list can be made longer Im sure.
The more you stretch finite resources and services, the more pressure you put on dividing lines in society.
If your sitting in a queue waiting for a council house, or find that you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a job you apply for, its a hard sell to someone in that situation to say 'Yeah what we need are MORE people' so that your chances are even less, surely you will support that. They wont.
If you have a job, money isnt too much of a problem, its very easy to dream up some rosy picture of a multicultural society with lots of hugs and everyone having a lovely life. Unfortunatly thats Hollywood, not reality.
I watched that BBC prog Poor Kids the other day. That we have people living in such circumstances doesnt convince me that reducing their opportunities further is a great idea.
I found it genuinely moving. Worth a look if you havent seen it.
|
The EU crisis is coming to a head.
"Italy begins crisis talks with EU"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14385636
Selected quotes from the article:
"Italian finance minister Giulio Tremonti has begun crisis talks with Jean-Claude Juncker, chair of the Eurogroup of finance ministers from the 17 eurozone countries.
The talks come as yields on Italian bonds have reached euro-era record levels.
In early trading on Wednesday, the yield on Italian 10-year bonds rose 0.19 percentage points to 6.21%, while the yield on Spanish 10-year bonds was at 6.34%, just below Tuesday's record of 6.45%.
A cost of borrowing above 6% is considered unsustainable by many economists.
The problems come less than two weeks after eurozone leaders agreed a second bailout for Greece, which was partly aimed at preventing the sovereign debt problems spreading to other countries.
Italy, which is the eurozone's third-largest economy, has so far managed to avoid sovereign debt problems, despite having one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the eurozone at 120%.
But Italy's economy is twice as big as Greece, Portugal and the Irish Republic combined, so a bailout would probably be unaffordable."
|
Stu, I was, along with madf, merely trying to pull Roger up on his nonsense about our pristine island race.
I wasn't trying to start a debate about the pros and cons of 21st century immigration.
As usual, those in the "against" side of that debate took the opportunity to try to colour this debate in that direction.
If you read my contributions to this thread properly then that would become clear.
|
I'm with Alanovic on the above..
|
|
Its funny how the anti EU argument always seems to go hand it in hand with the anti immigration argument.
|
I know what you were doing, I think its a futile arguement to have with our man Rog though because his views are quite firmly and clearly in a certain direction, that much is pretty clear over all his posts on various subjects, so I think its a rather futile argument to be having.
Instead of going on the attack, try finding out why someone would hold such views, Im sure Roger has his reasons and to him they may be as heartfelt and valid to him as yours are to you.
I dont think there its a clearcut debate either. Im against a fair amount of immigration but Im not against immigrants, Im from a family full of them, so the 'for/against' attitude is a poor one as its too complex a subject to think of it on those terms.
I think your wasting your time doing history lessons though, I think you know the student isnt going to listen ;-)
|
>> I think you know the
>> student isnt going to listen ;-)
Ain't that the desperately sad thruth. There's none so deaf as those who won't hear.
Roger and his ilk are welcome to their views on modern day immigration. (I happen to share some discomfort about immigration numbers and policies, not that anyone's going to listen to me, all anyone on here seems to want to do is to characterise me as some left wing nutjob.) However, if those views are then justified by inaccurate and specious historical nonsense, then they become invalid.
Backed up by proper debate, facts and argument then they become valid again.
|
>> left wing nutjob <<
It suits you, enjoy it ;-)
|
>> Instead of going on the attack, try finding out why someone would hold such views,
>> Im sure Roger has his reasons and to him they may be as heartfelt and
>> valid to him as yours are to you.
>>
>> I think your wasting your time doing history lessons though, I think you know the
>> student isnt going to listen ;-)
Wise words I think. The reasons behind why somebody would come to a conclusion, are far more important than the conclusion.
Trying to batter somebody with your conclusion, ain't going to get them to change their conclusion.
If you did want to change somebody's mind you really need to challenge their thought process and underlying beliefs (which, in itself, isn't easy).
To try to take a "teacher-student" stance isn't going to work either (unless, perhaps, you are an established authority).
Of course, this is an internet forum, and we often don't have the time, commitment or real desire to really try to change somebody else's conclusions, just trot out and then defend our own. :)
|
I dunno what on Earth SS and Stu are on about (not for the first time ;-)).
I'm not trying to change Roger's opinion. He didn't express an opinion. He said something untrue. I'm pointing out factual inaccuracies to him which are naff all to do with opinion. He said there was no mass immigration to Britain before 1945, and after the Normans. He was wrong. There is no debate about that.
|
>> I'm not trying to change Roger's opinion. He didn't express an opinion. He said something
>> untrue. I'm pointing out factual inaccuracies to him which are naff all to do with
>> opinion.
Yeah, as I said, we often don't actually want to change the other person's conclusion, just put forward and justify our own.
Nothing wrong with that at all, it is just usually not clear whether we are trying to convince the other person or not.
I wasn't suggesting that you were, I was just agreeing with the idea that when we are trying to change an opinion, we really have to tackle the underlying belief system.
|
Define mass immigration, define immigration even. Are Ameicans immigrants, didnt they start off english some of them?
Roger may define mass immigration as 500k people per year, someone else may define it as 2 million.
And therein lies the problem. You assume that the world is defined by your definitions of everything. Different people define things in different ways and so what you call mass immigration, others may not. His opinion of what is and isnt mass immigration need not be the same as yours.
|
>> Still dont see what history has to do with anything but you guys argue away.
History has to do with everything Stu. It is wilful ignorance of history that makes most Islamists and born-agains so laughably, idiotically and dangerously misguided. The very worst and most reeking nationalisms invariably falsify their national histories. Utopian ideologies are almost equally bad.
|
|
What I don't understand is how one can go and be an immigrant in another country, and then come home and complain about immigrants!
|
|
And complain about the EU, whithout which the opportunity for that person to migrate may not have been there.
|
>>opportunity for that person to migrate may not have been there<<
Its always been there, remember that historical immigration you have been telling us about. Tut tut.
|
>> Its always been there, remember that historical immigration you have been telling us about. Tut
>> tut.
Deliberately misconstruing my point there.
|
>>come home and complain about immigrants!<<
Well for one they followed the BNP mantra of going back where they came from :-)
|
No, history is an excuse for not going forward, hanging onto old ideas just because someone had them before. here and now counst because we are here, right now.
Immigration is a practical issue, its numbers, statistics, provision. We didnt have council houses 200 years ago, we didnt have the population figures we have today, we didnt have the expectations of living standards we have today.
You can argue about history as much as you like, go ahead, but history aint gonna build houses or feed people.
Im not ignorant of history, its one of my favorite subjects infact, but other than the predictable patterns with which human beings behave in certain circumstances, it dont amount to a hill of beans.
Historically we had alot of things, that we didnt much like we discarded, the rest became absorbed into our way of life.
|
>> Historically we had alot of things, that we didnt much like we discarded, the rest became absorbed into our way of life.
We part company on this Stu.
History is not a utilitarian matter. It concerns basic comprehension of who we are, who the others are and how things more or less seem to be working at present.
It isn't a sort of intellectual pick'n'mix counter. That's the way fascists and extreme nationalists treat it. And we don't trust them, do we?
|
Using what happened hundreds of years ago as some kind of guide to who we are now is just what the extremists love to do.
I didnt get my identity from some history book. Infact its this pre-occupation with who has what identity which fuels racisim and separatism.
Who I am today and who I want to be tomorrow is what matters to me.
|
>> Using what happened hundreds of years ago
Well exactly Stu. The key is in the word 'using'. The only thing a proper person uses history for is to understand. Using it in the sense of manipulating it is what I meant by treating it in a utilitarian manner.
It isn't something you can use. It's just there. And there's a lot of it, so people are tempted to cut corners.
But I won't go on trying to make this point. If you don't want to see it, you won't.
|
The thing about history, is that its the only thing we have to show if the things we did or said in the past were right or wrong. Right now we are dealing with the fall out of things we did wrong.
Take Zimbabwe, Yes it been destroyed by a megolomaniac, but it was the British who planted the seed and set the scene for him to flourish.
Lets take most of Africa in fact, someone up the thread bemoaned the fact that the Africans were always fighting among themselves. Well who banded and herded the disparate tribes together into countries merely because it was easier to draw straight lines on maps, the natives were easier to administer?*
Middle East? ditto - our fault
India/Pakistan? again look no further than these shores.
Having screwed up most of the world, its a bit churlish to get all isolationist init!
* It took us 1600 years to turn from a bunch of tribes into stability. Africa has only had 300 years so far/
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 14:53
|
>>Having screwed up most of the world, its a bit churlish to get all isolationist init<<
I do sometimes wonder, given our skill for making a hash of things, why we still think we can solve the worlds problems.
|
|
Quite - no lessons learned it seems.
|
>> why we still think we can solve the worlds problems.
Who thinks that? All our leaders want to do is turn the world's problems to our (or their) advantage if possible, or anyway limit the damage to us (or them) as far as possible. If helping to solve a problem is part of that, well and good. If it isn't, too bad. Geddit?
Nor is it remotely true that 'we' - the British or English - have 'screwed up the world' or invariably 'made a hash of things'. That isn't really how things happen. They seem like a good idea at the time, then things move on and there are knock-on effects. Our imperial and colonial record is very mixed of course, as one would expect. But to go from believing in glorious Albion to thinking we are just a seedy bunch of jumped up thieves and always were is a typical bit of British masochism.
I am tired of this thread. It's getting on my nerves.
|
Any time history is cited in an argument it is being used by that person to back up a point. Its been used many times in this thread.
History only explains how you have arrived at the current point in time, very little of it offers much of a solution going forward.
Recent history is of some help but citing events from many hundreds of years ago is rather meaningless given the very different times in which they happened.
|
>> Recent history is of some help but citing events from many hundreds of years ago
>> is rather meaningless given the very different times in which they happened.
So what dictated recent history? preceding history! You cant just turn of a switch and say beyond this date is of no relevance! Of course it is - it set the seeds for what followed! Its a continuity!
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 14:56
|
|
To back that up, if we didnt have an Empire we wouldn't now have immigrants. The empire was born 400 years ago.
|
To back that up, if we didnt have an Empire we wouldn't now have immigrants.
The empire was born 400 years ago.
When were Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Poland, and other East European countries part of the British Empire?
|
If anything other than recent history mattered THAT much then we would be far more worried about Germany's power in Europe than we actually are.
Look at the pathetic obsession we still have here about WW2 and the never-ending jibes about Germany. Germany today may be born out of ashes of that war, but who the german people are today, how they think, how they see themselves, is somewhat more relevant than the Nazis.
If you want to make plans for the future, do you look back 200-300 years or do you look forward? Are we expecting a Viking conquest any time soon? Should we plan for it?
Thought not.
|
"Having screwed up most of the world, its a bit churlish to get all isolationist in it<<"
Well written lack of historical knowledge.
take Africa.. 400 years ago Africa was a bunch of warring tribes.. 200 years ago Africa was a bunch of warring tribes. They still are.. with exceptions..
Take India: 400 years ago India was a bunch of warring Princedoms...
Take Pakistan : 400 years ago Pakistan was abunch of warring tribes: it still is.
Take Canada and the US: 400 years ago they were a bunch of warring tribes. They are mainly gone: wiped out.
Take Australia: 400 yaars ago it was basically uninhabited.
Take Palestine and the middle East: 200 years ago it was a mass of warring tribes run in parts by the Turkish Empire.. It still is.. we helped evict the Turks in WW1. And created the state of Israel.. Since then it's been the locals who have made the running.
All the guilt rubbish is just that: rubbish. Usually spouted by people who don't know their history..
Yes we killed lots of people and invented the concentration camp. Did we systematically and deliberately set out to wipe out competing nations - as the US did with the Indians, The Serbs did, the Arabs state they will with the Jews, Saddam Hussein did, Hitler did,etc.
As for Zimbabwe, it's tribal..
We are one of the largest givers of financial and technical aid to others in crisis. The Arab states give virtually nil and AFrican states object to external interference.. and let other Africans starve..
|
>> "Having screwed up most of the world, its a bit churlish to get all isolationist
>> in it<<"
>>
>>
>> Well written lack of historical knowledge.
>>
>> take Africa.. 400 years ago Africa was a bunch of warring tribes.. 200 years ago
>> Africa was a bunch of warring tribes. They still are.. with exceptions..
So why did we push them into "nations" then
>
>> Take India: 400 years ago India was a bunch of warring Princedoms...
>> Take Pakistan : 400 years ago Pakistan was abunch of warring tribes: it still is.
So why did we try and unite them then?
>> Take Canada and the US: 400 years ago they were a bunch of warring tribes.
>> They are mainly gone: wiped out.
The tribes were mostly peaceful because they didn't travel outside of clearly defined winter and summer habitats.
>>
>> Take Australia: 400 yaars ago it was basically uninhabited.
So WE persecuted the Abbos
>>
>> Take Palestine and the middle East: 200 years ago it was a mass of warring
>> tribes run in parts by the Turkish Empire.. It still is.. we helped evict the
>> Turks in WW1. And created the state of Israel..
Yeah rather than give it back to the Palestinians.
I wont go on, I would suggest its not my lack of history at doubt here. As for who tried to exploit most of the world, it was us. The Americans were mostly parochial doing it to their own.
|
>> I wont go on, I would suggest its not my lack of history at doubt
>> here. As for who tried to exploit most of the world, it was us. The
>> Americans were mostly parochial doing it to their own.
>>
I am not an apologist for the British or any other Empire. I accept that some good work was done but I believe that on balance they were wrong.
Zero, I agree with the principle that you are suggesting about European exploitation and errors, and also agree with most of your examples. However, I think that your examples of Africa and India/Pakistan reflect worse on their inhabitants, rather than the British.
1) Yes, the Europeans drew stupid borders in Africa, but the Africans have been their own masters for so long now, that if they really wanted to then they could redraw the boundaries to suit themselves. They prefer to continue to enjoy victimhood.
2) British India included modern Pakistan, and it was always intended for the whole country to become independent as one unit - that is certainly what the dominant Congress Party envisaged.
Jinnah then gave everyone a body swerve and split with Congress to advocate a separate Pakistan, which he led. The violence between Muslims and Hindus at this time was worse than anything the British had ever done in India and was entirely of their own making. They can't blame the British for something that the British urged them not to do!
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 18:32
|
petition for debate on EU withdrawl - Zero
