Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 04:41 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:37 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:20 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:37 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:03 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:49 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 06:27 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 19:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 20:30 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:07 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 20:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:51 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 17:35 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 14:30 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:40 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:34 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 08:37 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 23:35 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 12:52 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 21:46 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-21 21:48 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:16 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-22 23:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-01-23 17:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:27 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-02-29 09:26 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:02 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:48 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:00 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:01 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-10 19:33 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-15 16:27 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:17 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:44 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:05 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:08 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 06:40 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 23:44 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:23 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 11:47 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-06 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:51 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 19:20 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 01:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:43 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 09:36 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-08 15:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 11:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 17:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:06 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 07:41 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:59 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:13 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:17 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 08:04 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-21 11:16 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 22:51 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:29 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 08:33 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-11 14:34 -0400
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:28 +0100
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:21 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 10:02 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-26 07:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:26 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:59 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:01 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:16 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:05 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 11:27 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-26 11:47 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:08 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-28 11:54 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:47 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:13 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:07 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:04 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 17:48 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:16 +0000
Re: cows and bulls game, was [Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 21:19 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:56 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:56 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-21 19:46 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 15:38 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:10 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq4e3$9c7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9228 |
James Harris wrote: > On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: > <snip - consensus> >> Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted >> by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because >> the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really >> that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed >> by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in >> Syria!"? > > The numbers game that European States are playing sounds like a bidding war. "We offer to take N > people. How many will you take? Can we bargain the numbers up or down?" etc. ISTM they offer to take > certain numbers of people as a negotiating position as if people are like quantities of a product. > > I don't agree with that approach at all. In my view - and I am not claiming anything other than a > personal view - people should be _brought_ to Europe and given support based on two things: need and > trustworthiness. > > By "need" I mean that European governments should bring people from the trouble zones based on need > and their ability to house and protect such people, not based on a predetermined quantity. Basing on > need would favour women, children the sick and elderly etc, at least where they could not get the > support they need in the regions where they come from. As the Syrian war has gone on so long > children's schooling is key so that there is not a "lost generation" who miss out on all education. > > By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens, governments should only > bring in people they feel they can trust to behave lawfully. > > IMV governments should do what is necessary to fix the problems that people are fleeing from, and > should do what is necessary to support those who flee war so they can remain in the region near > their homes. If governments resist sending money to help those people they should consider the cost > against that of taking the people to Europe. Agreement until here. > I would stop people migrating by their own means. That means being tough at the start and I don't > think governments have the political courage necessary. But it would save lives. And it would > protect existing European residents from danger - a prime purpose of a government. > > Because lots of people are on the move, such a change of policy would have to be well publicised and > there would have to be a cut-off day: Keep current policy until a certain date. After that, people > would only be taken from near their homes. And they *would* be turned back if they tried to get into > Europe directly. That means naval patrols to prevent people from leaving the relative safety of land > for the open sea. I agree there has to be a change and problems have to be solved at the origin, that is: In Afghanistan, Iran, Irak, Syria, et cetera. It will cost less than 'handling' millions of asylum seekers and immigrants. I doubt we ever will be able to stop immigrants from trying everything to reach Europe as their assumed 'promised land' (as there's no way to keep poor unemployed from Mexico out of the USA or Palestinians out of Israel). The only solution is to end all civil wars and riots and help to restore destroyed infrastructures as soon as possible. >> These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be >> limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense >> to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing >> they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently. > > Absolutely. Europe can welcome inward immigration but it should be based on need, not just on taking > anyone who arrives. Because of where it is and its endless coast Greece is in the 'firing line'. Yes. Moreover, we already have a constant 'stream' of European workers moving to countries with higher income. In the long run, it undermines minimum wages and leads to the destruction of welfare systems in those countries with higher GDP. The only solution is *one* common level for all members of the EU, so there's no reason to work in another country just because you get more money there for the *same* work you could do in your home country. >> There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create >> jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as >> we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should >> not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty". > > That sounds good but how would you create those jobs? > > I have to say I think most genuine refugees are those fleeing war or famine rather than poverty. As in German, English does not differentiate between those fleeing war and those fleeing from starvation. We produce about twice as much food as required to feed all people around the globe. In other words: Greed is the cause why millions of people starve - we prefer to burn food as energy source rather than to give it to those who needed it. Is profit worth human life? >> Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in >> Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were >> taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can >> happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them. > > As the governments are the ones with the bigger amount of power do you think that we are anywhere > near the governments becoming xenophobic? I have seen small pockets of anger but nothing widespread. Look at the political decisions in Poland (where I was born, so I care about even if I grew up in Germany), Hungary and many other Eastern EU members - they *are* driven by xenophobia (if not racism). That's more than just 'small pockets'. >> If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper >> direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge >> growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along >> with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed >> with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders, >> so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate. >> More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who >> are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over >> at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be >> errected). > > Open borders are nice to have but they lack security. Sometimes, the inconveniences of controls are > needed in order to provide safety. How much 'safety' do you expect you can buy with closing all once open borders? What you get are commmercial deficits plus division of entire people who cannot get freely from one place inside the EU to another - turning European solidarity down for a questionable increase in safety is a huge step back into dark ages. >> ... Millions of refugees are moving towards Europe > > Are you sure they are refugees? I think most people travelling are economic migrants. I don't blame > them for migrating, by the way. If I lived in a poor country and I heard that Europe had opened its > doors to any who made the journey I would definitely consider moving myself and my family to Europe. > But I do blame Europe for issuing the invitation. > > As for those who began as genuine refugees - mainly those fleeing war in Syria - consider what has > happened to them. They have had to flee their homes due to war. At that time they were genuine > refugees. Many of them would have ended up in a safe place - possibly at a refugee camp - but then > they decided to make the journey through a number of safe countries so that they can get to their > preferred country in Europe. IMV once they leave a safe place they are no longer refugees but > migrants. Again, I don't blame them for migrating. It must be awful being in a refugee camp. But I > don't think someone who travels from one safe place to another should be considered as a refugee. Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two other countries are too far away to travel to Europe. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis and other causes of life threatening situations. >> and we have to handle this stream regardless >> of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot >> tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the >> contingent all European countries together are willing to let into >> their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries >> at war is nothing else than premediated murder. > > As mentioned, people are migrating through lots of safe places to get to where they want to go. They > need to have safe and adequate places to shelter nearer home. Agreed. >> I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as >> well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves >> for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two >> faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the >> EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported >> wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer >> because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes >> at the cost of losing another. > > You mean the upcoming UK referendum? Yes, it is really interesting. I see the outcome in a different > way to you as I very much want the UK to leave the EU club but I also want it to be a better friend > and neighbour to the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU does not mean withdrawing from Europe! > The EU organisation is not the only way for people to cooperate. > > As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel free to say if the Brits are > a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting selfishly and not agreeing > with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside! So you want more solidarity through more division. It's an interesting concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be- tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other EU members: http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany, but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;) The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get the maximum output for all. I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying to replace solidarity with division. As long as people are divided, it is easy to make them act against each other: Poorer against less poor, workers against intellectuals, Christians against Muslims, 'Inlanders' against 'Outlanders', and so on. Definitely no solution for our *real* problem global warming and our destructive abuse of natural resources, but good for huge profits with vapour products like betting on winning court cases "company X versus state Y" we will get if we sign TTIPs. http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4853915-silent-revolution-ttip Today, the most money is not earned with production of real items, but with virtual 'wares' you can bet on rather than to perform real *work* to earn it. As long as we follow this path, things will get worse, and it is a matter of time until our species is history. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nceppn$v5b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9265 |
On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: >> On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote: [All OT] ... > Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From > these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two > other countries are too far away to travel to Europe. > > http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps I don't think there are refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. AIUI the Saudis have refused to accept anyone. IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by policing. There may be an opportunity there to employ people living in the camps. > As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those > fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon > as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the > victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis > and other causes of life threatening situations. Yes. Again, though, ISTM better to help the vast majority of people in camps in the region. Re. funding them it might be good to go through the UNHCR that you linked to, above, rather than paying countries like Turkey...! ... >> As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel >> free to say if the Brits are >> a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting >> selfishly and not agreeing >> with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside! > > > So you want more solidarity through more division. I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union. The UK doesn't. 2. Some other countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to merge into another country. 3. And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate. I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully protectionist, undemocratic supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to acquire and centralise more and more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out of touch and extravagant. For example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than the UK's prime minister, the EC president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over 100,000 euros (per annum?) for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to me to be absolutely disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes. I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way with continental neighbours and friends. The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since gradually become much more than that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a rugby club. Ok if you like rugby but not if you prefer tennis. > It's an interesting > concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be- > tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany > are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice > as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other > EU members: > > http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate > > I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm > a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is > not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany, > but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;) I think people of continental Europe feel more a family bond with other continental states than the UK does. Continuing the analogy, I personally see Scotland and England as family and I see France, Germany, Poland etc as friends. That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we share a home with family. Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often. > The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act > fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to > obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are > suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do > accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible > quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get > the maximum output for all. I think that's a big problem with the EU. People see it as the only option and thus support it despite all its faults. Many don't know of its faults but support it because the idea of European harmony sounds good. But the reality of what the EU does is far different. > I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying > to replace solidarity with division. I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division". Brits would still want to work together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of us don't want is lack of democracy and rule from a supranational government. > As long as people are divided, it > is easy to make them act against each other: Poorer against less poor, > workers against intellectuals, Christians against Muslims, 'Inlanders' > against 'Outlanders', and so on. Definitely no solution for our *real* > problem global warming and our destructive abuse of natural resources, > but good for huge profits with vapour products like betting on winning > court cases "company X versus state Y" we will get if we sign TTIPs. > > http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4853915-silent-revolution-ttip Thanks for the link. Yes, much of the EU is good for large multinational corporations, http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU, but it is, by design, bad for smaller competitors. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 09:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndd91g$j0t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9271 |
James Harris wrote: > On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >>> On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > > [All OT] > >> Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From >> these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two >> other countries are too far away to travel to Europe. >> >> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps > > I don't think there are refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. AIUI the Saudis have refused to accept anyone. Of course - they support ISIL, so they surely will not host ISIL's victims. > IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by policing. There may be an > opportunity there to employ people living in the camps. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB. I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about. >> As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those >> fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon >> as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the >> victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis >> and other causes of life threatening situations. > > Yes. Again, though, ISTM better to help the vast majority of people in camps in the region. > > Re. funding them it might be good to go through the UNHCR that you linked to, above, rather than > paying countries like Turkey...! As I stated somewhere else: I don't like that deal. It is a foul compromise, but the only solution all European leaders could agree to. >>> As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel >>> free to say if the Brits are >>> a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting >>> selfishly and not agreeing >>> with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside! >> >> So you want more solidarity through more division. > > I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union. The UK doesn't. 2. Some other > countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to merge into another country. 3. > And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate. That's picking the raisins from the cake (belonging to all) and leaving the remains for all others. That's the opposite of solidarity. Especially because the London Stock Exchange and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce- lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea to generate money without offering real values in exchange, for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing* shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the higher your profit). > I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully protectionist, undemocratic > supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to acquire and centralise more and > more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out of touch and extravagant. For > example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than the UK's prime minister, the EC > president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over 100,000 euros (per annum?) > for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to me to be absolutely > disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes. You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 % of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole. > I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way with continental neighbours > and friends. > > The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since gradually become much more than > that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a rugby club. Ok if you like rugby > but not if you prefer tennis. Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a Union like the UK or USA. The future will show that we will not survive if we don't work together as close as possible. >> It's an interesting >> concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be- >> tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany >> are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice >> as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other >> EU members: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate >> >> I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm >> a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is >> not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany, >> but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;) > > I think people of continental Europe feel more a family bond with other continental states than the > UK does. Continuing the analogy, I personally see Scotland and England as family and I see France, > Germany, Poland etc as friends. > > That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we share a home with family. > Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often. That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point of view, where all life in the universe respects each other and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit for all involved forces. What is wishful thinking right now might become our only way to survive in the near future. Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive... >> The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act >> fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to >> obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are >> suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do >> accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible >> quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get >> the maximum output for all. > > I think that's a big problem with the EU. People see it as the only option and thus support it > despite all its faults. > > Many don't know of its faults but support it because the idea of European harmony sounds good. But > the reality of what the EU does is far different. Not for my generation (I was born 1956). Generations before mine were formed by the war, generations 1980++ were formed by selfishness taught in TV spots and internet communities. >> I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying >> to replace solidarity with division. > > I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division". Brits would still want to work > together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of us don't want is lack of > democracy and rule from a supranational government. You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price? <snip> I think we will start an endless loop, so I suggest to come to an end here - it takes a lot of time to write replies on topics, if I have to look up a lot of special terms I never used before. I am specialised in programming stuff, ancient history and walkthroughs... ;) Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 10:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ndo29j$888$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9323 |
On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: >> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: [All OT] Notwithstanding your desire to bring this to an end, I will respond in some places. Don't feel that you need to reply. ... >> IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by >> policing. There may be an >> opportunity there to employ people living in the camps. > > > http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon > > Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are > Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees > in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB. > > I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about. I guess you mean that the number of people is too great for the Lebanon police force to handle. That is true. But _everything_ about such high volumes of people makes them too many for Lebanon to handle. There are too many to house, too many to feed, too many to care for medically, too many to school properly etc. What I suggested was to use some of the refugees to help with policing. That would not just provide some security but it would also give the people so employed an opportunity to earn a _little_ bit of money rather than just relying on handouts. I would not suggest employing people as irregular police in the long term because that would be open to corruption. But I would get them to carry out basic policing duties for a while and then come off and let others take over. Basic policing could be about writing and collating reports of problems in the communities. The regular Lebanese trained police would take any actions needed. ... >>> So you want more solidarity through more division. >> >> I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union. >> The UK doesn't. 2. Some other >> countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to >> merge into another country. 3. >> And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate. > > > That's picking the raisins from the cake (belonging to all) > and leaving the remains for all others. That's the opposite > of solidarity. Not at all. The EU trades around the world without requiring its worldwide trading partners to join a political union. And that trade is not "raisins" just for the country that trades with the EU; it benefits both sides. The EU model is ultimately unsustainable. Ruling over people without asking them periodically to approve the arrangement is undemocratic and it leads to two things: a ruling class who forget that they are there for the benefit of the people, and a people who become discontent with the ruling class. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1077/A-country-should-never-cede-power-without-periodic-referenda EU-scepticism is rising across the continent of Europe. In 1994 Norway voted 52:48 to stay out. Now, polling puts them at about 75:25. Iceland has recently decided to drop any pretence at wanting to join. So has Switzerland. The Dutch want a referendum (53% to 44%). The Czech PM "warned" that they could follow the UK out, if the UK leaves. The Hungarian PM has been very vocal against EU policies. In Portugal in 2015 about half the population voted for EU-sceptic parties. And note what the President said when ruling out allowing the left-wing coalition: "In 40 years of democracy, no government in Portugal has ever depended on the support of anti-European forces, that is to say forces that campaigned to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty, the Fiscal Compact, the Growth and Stability Pact, as well as to dismantle monetary union and take Portugal out of the euro, in addition to wanting the dissolution of NATO." In other words, just over half of voters had voted for parties with anti-EU agendas. Even in France, one of the most important members of the EU and one of the biggest beneficiaries, Marine LePen's Front National is gaining ground and topped a recent poll. In summary, forcing people into an undemocratic political union that they don't want is ultimately unsustainable. It would be better to help people work together without requiring that they head towards becoming a single state. > Especially because the London Stock Exchange > and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce- > lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not > only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea > to generate money without offering real values in exchange, > for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing* > shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the > higher your profit). I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if you recognise that the EU helps large companies at the expense of smaller competitors. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU >> I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully >> protectionist, undemocratic >> supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to >> acquire and centralise more and >> more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out >> of touch and extravagant. For >> example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than >> the UK's prime minister, the EC >> president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over >> 100,000 euros (per annum?) >> for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to >> me to be absolutely >> disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes. > > > You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money > for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your > royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 % > of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole. Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of GDP is quite beyond my comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders to pay themselves high salaries and live and work in luxury. It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money. >> I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way >> with continental neighbours >> and friends. >> >> The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since >> gradually become much more than >> that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a >> rugby club. Ok if you like rugby >> but not if you prefer tennis. > > > Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those > contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a > Union like the UK or USA. True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years! > The future will show that we will > not survive if we don't work together as close as possible. We do not need the EU in order to work together! I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity. Directional changes used to require all heads of government to agree. But as the EU expanded they found it was hard to get anything agreed so they compromised and accepted majority voting (no longer needing total agreement). Since then, countries representatives can be overruled. They have to accept the will of the majority. No one ever asks the populations what they want out of the EU or what policies the EU should follow. That is a recipe for discontent. Nations can work together without being in the EU. For example, on security the UK and its partners would continue to work together post-Brexit because we all need to cooperate. Such cooperation does not need anyone to be in a politico-economic club. In fact, one US ex CIA director said the EU tends to get in the way of security. Leaving the EU is not about isolation and it would not stop cooperation. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation ... >> That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we >> share a home with family. >> Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often. > > > That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point > of view, where all life in the universe respects each other > and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit > for all involved forces. I like that universal vision too. What you must accept, though, is that there are people out there who do not. While most of us want to get on well and be friends with our neighbours there are people in the world who want to do us harm. We must protect ourselves from them. > What is wishful thinking right now > might become our only way to survive in the near future. > > Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive... Yes, it is wishful thinking. Unless the peaceful stand up for themselves, it won't be the fittest but the aggressors who will survive. ... >> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division". >> Brits would still want to work >> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of >> us don't want is lack of >> democracy and rule from a supranational government. > > > You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price? Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No other trading bloc in the world has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core part of the "price" of membership. -- James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nee2jq$di3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9375 |
James Harris schrieb:
> On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>
> [All OT]
>
> Notwithstanding your desire to bring this to an end, I will respond in some places. Don't feel that
> you need to reply.
>
>>> IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by
>>> policing. There may be an
>>> opportunity there to employ people living in the camps.
>>
>> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon
>>
>> Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are
>> Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees
>> in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB.
>>
>> I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about.
>
> I guess you mean that the number of people is too great for the Lebanon police force to handle.
No. I mean the number is too large to handle for a quite small
country like Lebanon. (Turkey will reach the limits they might
handle without problems sooner or later, as well.)
> That
> is true. But _everything_ about such high volumes of people makes them too many for Lebanon to
> handle. There are too many to house, too many to feed, too many to care for medically, too many to
> school properly etc.
>
> What I suggested was to use some of the refugees to help with policing. That would not just provide
> some security but it would also give the people so employed an opportunity to earn a _little_ bit of
> money rather than just relying on handouts.
>
> I would not suggest employing people as irregular police in the long term because that would be open
> to corruption. But I would get them to carry out basic policing duties for a while and then come off
> and let others take over.
>
> Basic policing could be about writing and collating reports of problems in the communities. The
> regular Lebanese trained police would take any actions needed.
Law and order (police / justice) are of little worth if people
starve or freeze to death, because the infrastructure to grant
them proper shelter and sufficient food is missing.
>>>> So you want more solidarity through more division.
>>>
>>> I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union.
>>> The UK doesn't. 2. Some other
>>> countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to
>>> merge into another country. 3.
>>> And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate.
>>
>> That's picking the raisins from the cake (belonging to all)
>> and leaving the remains for all others. That's the opposite
>> of solidarity.
>
> Not at all. The EU trades around the world without requiring its worldwide trading partners to join
> a political union. And that trade is not "raisins" just for the country that trades with the EU; it
> benefits both sides.
>
> The EU model is ultimately unsustainable. Ruling over people without asking them periodically to
> approve the arrangement is undemocratic and it leads to two things: a ruling class who forget that
> they are there for the benefit of the people, and a people who become discontent with the ruling class.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1077/A-country-should-never-cede-power-without-periodic-referenda
>
> EU-scepticism is rising across the continent of Europe. In 1994 Norway voted 52:48 to stay out. Now,
> polling puts them at about 75:25. Iceland has recently decided to drop any pretence at wanting to
> join. So has Switzerland. The Dutch want a referendum (53% to 44%). The Czech PM "warned" that they
> could follow the UK out, if the UK leaves. The Hungarian PM has been very vocal against EU policies.
>
> In Portugal in 2015 about half the population voted for EU-sceptic parties. And note what the
> President said when ruling out allowing the left-wing coalition: "In 40 years of democracy, no
> government in Portugal has ever depended on the support of anti-European forces, that is to say
> forces that campaigned to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty, the Fiscal Compact, the Growth and Stability
> Pact, as well as to dismantle monetary union and take Portugal out of the euro, in addition to
> wanting the dissolution of NATO."
>
> In other words, just over half of voters had voted for parties with anti-EU agendas.
>
> Even in France, one of the most important members of the EU and one of the biggest beneficiaries,
> Marine LePen's Front National is gaining ground and topped a recent poll.
>
> In summary, forcing people into an undemocratic political union that they don't want is ultimately
> unsustainable. It would be better to help people work together without requiring that they head
> towards becoming a single state.
The extreme rigthists like Le Pen (F), Wilders (NL), Kaczyński
or Szydło (PL) and Orbán (HU) always were and still are strict
enemies of a united Europe. As nationalist forces, a united EU
would destroy their patridiotic dreams of one nation (or race)
ruling the entire world.
Watch the events in Poland - do you think they follow a proper
path as you cite their anti-democratic ideology as an argument
against a united Europe? Neighbours with common cultural roots
and common history should keep care of each other for *better*
reasons than disdainful mammonism.
>> Especially because the London Stock Exchange
>> and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
>> lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
>> only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
>> to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
>> for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
>> shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
>> higher your profit).
>
> I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if you recognise that the EU
> helps large companies at the expense of smaller competitors.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU
They will not ask you if you like them or not (as long as they
can make money they just will do it without asking any one for
permission).
Let us talk about real things: I often delivered plastic parts
for Nissan Motors to Johnson Control in Sunderland (pressed in
Augsburg). With open borders and domestic EU commerce, there's
one EU-wide tax to pay, but no toll or other costs. Voting for
Brexit, you *also* vote for customs, import taxes and controls
when entering or leaving British territory. Any decision comes
at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
never will come back)...
>>> I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully
>>> protectionist, undemocratic
>>> supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to
>>> acquire and centralise more and
>>> more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out
>>> of touch and extravagant. For
>>> example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than
>>> the UK's prime minister, the EC
>>> president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over
>>> 100,000 euros (per annum?)
>>> for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to
>>> me to be absolutely
>>> disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes.
>>
>> You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money
>> for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your
>> royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 %
>> of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole.
>
> Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of GDP is quite beyond my
> comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders to pay themselves high salaries and live and work
> in luxury.
>
> It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money.
Yes. On the other hand, these are *representatives* of a union
with 500,000,000 citicens. Calculating the "per head" share of
44,400,000 Euro, each European pays 8.88 Cent per anno to feed
the "luxury" of her/his representatives. Not too much compared
to the 68.86 Cent per head "Brits" grant their royals per anno
(including the toll for Dartford crossing)... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_Crossing
>>> I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way
>>> with continental neighbours and friends.
>>>
>>> The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since
>>> gradually become much more than
>>> that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a
>>> rugby club. Ok if you like rugby
>>> but not if you prefer tennis.
>>
>> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
>> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
>> Union like the UK or USA.
>
> True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!
Do you really claim to live in a *dictatorship* since 1976? If
your answer is no: You (the British people) voted for previous
parliaments - you were not forced to vote for those who follow
the European idea and sign pro-European contracts. Democracies
do not have to start a referendum for each political decision:
Their citicens *delegate* the power to decide to a parliament,
and, thereafter, the "avatars" they elected make decisions for
their citicens. AFAIK, no country in this world is governed by
"direct democracy". The one that comes closest is Switzerland,
but, even there: Most decisions do not require a "referendum".
All other countries rely on delegatees (=avatars) and frequent
election of candidates themselves or parties (or a mix of both
choices). Isn't it up to the *citicens* to vote for candidates
who offer solutions matching their own political wishes? Don't
blame the majority not to care about wishes of minorities, but
blame politicians who promise political deeds just to increase
their personal might or wealth, but act completely contrary to
what they promised when they are elected and start to make de-
cisions.
>> The future will show that we will
>> not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.
>
> We do not need the EU in order to work together!
That is what you - one of more than 64 million British folks -
believe (as no one can know this for real, it's just one valid
belief of many).
> I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity.
Until the early 1970ies this is true. Thereafter, most leaders
advanced this pure commercial organisation into a cultural and
political Union with the final goal to found the United States
of Europe. Meanwhile, growing selfishness starts to divide the
mutually grown solidarity just to benefit from the weakness of
the poorest members of the Union. I am pretty sure the UK will
suffer from a "Brexit" as well as most other EU members, while
China, the USA and Japan will benefit from our faction.
> Directional changes used to require all heads of government to agree. But as the EU expanded they
> found it was hard to get anything agreed so they compromised and accepted majority voting (no longer
> needing total agreement). Since then, countries representatives can be overruled. They have to
> accept the will of the majority.
>
> No one ever asks the populations what they want out of the EU or what policies the EU should follow.
> That is a recipe for discontent.
>
> Nations can work together without being in the EU. For example, on security the UK and its partners
> would continue to work together post-Brexit because we all need to cooperate. Such cooperation does
> not need anyone to be in a politico-economic club. In fact, one US ex CIA director said the EU tends
> to get in the way of security.
>
> Leaving the EU is not about isolation and it would not stop cooperation.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation
It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the
last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade...
>>> That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we
>>> share a home with family.
>>> Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often.
>>
>>
>> That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point
>> of view, where all life in the universe respects each other
>> and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit
>> for all involved forces.
>
> I like that universal vision too. What you must accept, though, is that there are people out there
> who do not. While most of us want to get on well and be friends with our neighbours there are people
> in the world who want to do us harm. We must protect ourselves from them.
I am aware of those who want to return to Middle Age politics,
and I don't see any difference between fundamentalist Muslims,
fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist patriots: They all
try to force the entire population to obey their rules. That's
nothing a democrat (or humanist) can agree with.
>> What is wishful thinking right now
>> might become our only way to survive in the near future.
>>
>> Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive...
>
> Yes, it is wishful thinking. Unless the peaceful stand up for themselves, it won't be the fittest
> but the aggressors who will survive.
Yes.
>>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>>> Brits would still want to work
>>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>>> us don't want is lack of
>>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>>
>> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?
>
> Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No other trading bloc in the world
> has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core part of the "price" of membership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
What you are talking about does no longer exist since 1993.
With the process of re-uniting both German states, the leaders
of the EEC (namely Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher/Major) came to
the conclusion that only a united Europe might be fit to with-
stand the challenges of our future, so they ignited the "fire"
to develop the United States of Europe. It is based on solida-
rity and mutual assistance - the pillars of freedom and wealth
for all citicens. Now that many people throughout Europe don't
(want to) support this goal any longer, preferring nationalism
over solidarity and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get
oppression and poverty in the long run. I don't know why folks
support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts
of a few superrich, but they will earn their "price" (which is
total poverty with an optimized (= abolished) welfare system).
I hope I will die before this inhuman world is established...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
P.S.: Providing links to your own texts is a valid move, but I
did not see a single footnote citing independent sources
backing up your claims. As long as these are monologues,
they represent private *opinion* - nothing less, nothing
more. If you want to lend your words meaning, you should
furnish your claims with facts supporting the underlying
ideas. Here is a (actually my) philosophical view of the
problem:
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/introduction.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/living-in-pyramid-land-part-1.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/03/living-in-pyramid-land-part-2.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2015/06/living-in-pyramid-land-part-3.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 16:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neqtht$p87$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9424 |
Myself scribbled: > James Harris schrieb: Should have been "wrote" rather than the German "schrieb". *Addendum* A BBC documentary about "Super Rich": http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1) http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2) It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis- tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and only poor and super rich are left. Such strategies threaten our "security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP: https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the petition. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 08:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfn42u$jii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9443 |
On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > Myself scribbled: > >> James Harris schrieb: > > Should have been "wrote" rather than the German "schrieb". Either is fine! > *Addendum* > > A BBC documentary about "Super Rich": > > http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1) > http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2) > > It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective > the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis- > tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity > to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a > process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface > of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and > only poor and super rich are left. That sounds really bad, and quite believable. I haven't watched the videos yet. > Such strategies threaten our > "security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers > together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP: > > https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB > > All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the > petition. That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU. TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests, working against smaller competition and individuals. And anti-democratic. The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you" until you wake up one day and find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it negotiates makes it stronger and harder to pull away from. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ngapjk$plg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9454 |
James Harris wrote: > On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> Myself scribbled: >> >> *Addendum* >> >> A BBC documentary about "Super Rich": >> >> http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1) >> http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2) >> >> It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective >> the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis- >> tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity >> to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a >> process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface >> of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and >> only poor and super rich are left. > > That sounds really bad, and quite believable. I haven't watched the videos yet. > >> Such strategies threaten our >> "security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers >> together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP: >> >> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB >> >> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the >> petition. > > That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU. Not at all. TTIP is a threat for all people in the EU and the USA. It grants Big Business too much power, and takes democratic rights from states and their people. I work towards a united world, not a "united business"... > TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an > EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests, > working against smaller competition and individuals. Surely not EU politics. In concurrence to its members, the EU does not grant big companies a special treatment. Actually: Even if the EU parliament wished to, they could not, because they cannot enact (better: *suspend*) taxes raised by its members. The right to levy taxes (or worship them Big Business to keep jobs) still is left to the member states. The EU itself does not raise taxes, so there is no way to sponsor Big Business (like the member states do). > And anti-democratic. As anti-democratic as any other *democratically elected* political representative. > The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you" until you wake up one day and > find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it negotiates makes it stronger > and harder to pull away from. Please get informed what the EU really is. I'm surely no expert in EU internals, but I know enough to tell that your thoughts are not describing EU politics. It is a little bit comparable to those who want the "good old Deutschmark" back, because they do not like the Euro as currency. "Europhobia" is like xenophobia (especially this EU-wide islamophobia which suddenly grew to a markable pohenomenon within a few months) or arachnophobia - fear of something we don't know at all... Regarding TTIP: This treaty is the work of lobbies and polititians against all people living in the EU and USA. it is kept secret be- fore our eyes, because its makers fear that citicens in the EU and the USA never would sacrifice democratic rights or freedom for un- limited commercialisation of human rights (e.g.: the privatisation of DNA sequences or water supplies of entire regions). BUT: You should be aware that this is kept secret on both sides of the pond: "I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'" [Elizabeth Warren, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (USA)] I am pretty sure people in the USA will not prevent D. Trump or H. Clinton from signing TTIP, but with a little help from us European people we can prevent that European politicians sign this treaty. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 09:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ngcb1m$ckh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9481 |
On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: >> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: ... >>> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB >>> >>> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the >>> petition. >> >> That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU. > > > Not at all. TTIP is a threat for all people in the EU and the USA. > It grants Big Business too much power, and takes democratic rights > from states and their people. I work towards a united world, not a > "united business"... Well, AIUI, the EU is great for Big Business, Big Banks and similar. It is far more pro multinational corporates than it is for the small shop keeper. It seems likely that if the EU continues to go the way it is then Europe will end up in the power of the big corporations and small firms will be squeezed out. If you believed that the EU was a vehicle for large companies would that change your mind about it? Could you be persuaded to think of a new Europe in which the small firms and individuals had the greater say? >> TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an >> EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests, >> working against smaller competition and individuals. > > > Surely not EU politics. In concurrence to its members, the EU does > not grant big companies a special treatment. Actually: Even if the > EU parliament wished to, they could not, because they cannot enact > (better: *suspend*) taxes raised by its members. The right to levy > taxes (or worship them Big Business to keep jobs) still is left to > the member states. The EU itself does not raise taxes, so there is > no way to sponsor Big Business (like the member states do). I wrote up some reasons to back up what I say. What do you think of these: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072 Now I have more information I could add to that list but it seems relevant as it is. >> And anti-democratic. > > > As anti-democratic as any other *democratically elected* political > representative. Hardly. The Commission has long been the chief legislative body and is fast becoming the executive. No one on the Commission is democratically elected! The only elected body, the Parliament, cannot draft new laws and cannot make executive decisions. It can only vote on laws the Commission draws up. And, in that, it has no more say than the Council of Ministers - which is also unelected! >> The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you" >> until you wake up one day and >> find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it >> negotiates makes it stronger >> and harder to pull away from. > > > Please get informed what the EU really is. I'm surely no expert in > EU internals, but I know enough to tell that your thoughts are not > describing EU politics. I have studied it. It was only after doing so that I came to the conclusion that the UK has to leave it. I found it hard to believe what a terrible model the EU had become from what was once a laudable dream. That said, if you think I have something wrong about it or you want to tell me what's good about it feel free. I am willing to see it differently but I think I know enough to be sure that it is not right for the UK and it is probably bad for citizens of other countries too. ISTM that many think "we want to cooperate and we have the EU for that". But I would suggest that the EU is not at all a good way to cooperate. There are much better ways. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhqbkb$jto$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9490 |
James Harris wrote: > On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > >>>> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB >>>> >>>> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the >>>> petition. >>> >>> That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU. >> >> Not at all. TTIP is a threat for all people in the EU and the USA. >> It grants Big Business too much power, and takes democratic rights >> from states and their people. I work towards a united world, not a >> "united business"... > > Well, AIUI, the EU is great for Big Business, Big Banks and similar. It is far more pro > multinational corporates than it is for the small shop keeper. > > It seems likely that if the EU continues to go the way it is then Europe will end up in the power of > the big corporations and small firms will be squeezed out. > > If you believed that the EU was a vehicle for large companies would that change your mind about it? > Could you be persuaded to think of a new Europe in which the small firms and individuals had the > greater say? You mismatch Europe as international market with the EU as the political instrument to enact laws to *control* players acting on this market. While the EU does not allow things like these http://tinyurl.com/hxedujw http://tinyurl.com/httjarq http://tinyurl.com/j67xmta , TTIP tries to inaugurate them through the back-door. EU laws and regulations were made to protect the consumer from manufacturers who do not care about health as long as they can save two hundredth of a cent per unit if they use less healthy processing. They were not made to protect commercial interests of physical persons or companies. >>> TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an >>> EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests, >>> working against smaller competition and individuals. >> >> Surely not EU politics. In concurrence to its members, the EU does >> not grant big companies a special treatment. Actually: Even if the >> EU parliament wished to, they could not, because they cannot enact >> (better: *suspend*) taxes raised by its members. The right to levy >> taxes (or worship them Big Business to keep jobs) still is left to >> the member states. The EU itself does not raise taxes, so there is >> no way to sponsor Big Business (like the member states do). > > I wrote up some reasons to back up what I say. What do you think of these: > > http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072 > > Now I have more information I could add to that list but it seems relevant as it is. Then we should wait until you wrote down these new information and cited the sources where people can verify your claims. Maybe this page might help: https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 >>> And anti-democratic. >> >> As anti-democratic as any other *democratically elected* political >> representative. > > Hardly. The Commission has long been the chief legislative body and is fast becoming the executive. > No one on the Commission is democratically elected! > > The only elected body, the Parliament, cannot draft new laws and cannot make executive decisions. It > can only vote on laws the Commission draws up. And, in that, it has no more say than the Council of > Ministers - which is also unelected! http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm Please cite the corresponding pages. As you can read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission the EU commission is no political institution deployed by a EU dictatorship, but a democratically elected government with li- mited authorisation. >>> The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you" >>> until you wake up one day and >>> find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it >>> negotiates makes it stronger and harder to pull away from. >> >> Please get informed what the EU really is. I'm surely no expert in >> EU internals, but I know enough to tell that your thoughts are not >> describing EU politics. > > I have studied it. It was only after doing so that I came to the conclusion that the UK has to leave > it. I found it hard to believe what a terrible model the EU had become from what was once a laudable > dream. > > That said, if you think I have something wrong about it or you want to tell me what's good about it > feel free. I am willing to see it differently but I think I know enough to be sure that it is not > right for the UK and it is probably bad for citizens of other countries too. > > ISTM that many think "we want to cooperate and we have the EU for that". But I would suggest that > the EU is not at all a good way to cooperate. There are much better ways. I cannot verify your claims as long as you do not refer to EU- law (citing paragraphs), how they should be "improved" and how you want to convince 28 nations to agree to your suggestions. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en Please cite things you do not like so I can get information to verify your doubts. You should keep in mind: The EU parliamant has to find *compromises* capable to satisfy the interests of 500,000,000 people in 28 member states - even if none of 'em is really happy with such compromises, it still was a minimum all members could agree to. Hence, each of these compromises was the result of a living democratic process. Now, as a logical consequence: If you claim "these compromises are wrong" or "undemocratic", you *suppress* the fact that you attack the will of 500,000,000 people who agreed to those com- promises (including the voices of British EU politicians). Think about it before you continue to accuse so much people to value other things higher than your own (private?) interests - as I told before: It is not just you and me, it is 499,999,998 people more who *are* Europe. Regardless of our personal view: The British Isles including Ireland are part of Europe (except you invent a new "British" Continent which shall not belong to Europe any longer...). Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 08:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nie6da$mlf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9535 |
On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: ... > Then we should wait until you wrote down these new information > and cited the sources where people can verify your claims. There are at least three different classes of comment: 1. Opinion 2. Data 3. Logic There is much opinion around. Pretty much all of it can be ignored. Appeals to authority are never convincing. Data references are useful. But they can, of course, only tell us about the past and the present. Logic is always good, if it uses valid reasoning. Of the three, only data and logic are really useful. But they can be powerful if considered with an open mind. In my blog site I concentrate on data and logic. I may include opinion for two reasons: 1. To back up the logic, not to supplant it. 2. To refute it. > Maybe this page might help: > > https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 No, it's more opinion. We have had loads of people telling us how hard it would be to split from the EU, as that article does, and we have had loads of people telling us how easy it would be. Neither side is being truthful, IMO. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nieemj$fcp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9586 |
James Harris wrote: > On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > >> Then we should wait until you wrote down these new information >> and cited the sources where people can verify your claims. > > There are at least three different classes of comment: > > 1. Opinion > 2. Data > 3. Logic > > There is much opinion around. Pretty much all of it can be ignored. Appeals to authority are never > convincing. > > Data references are useful. But they can, of course, only tell us about the past and the present. > > Logic is always good, if it uses valid reasoning. > > Of the three, only data and logic are really useful. But they can be powerful if considered with an > open mind. > > In my blog site I concentrate on data and logic. I may include opinion for two reasons: > > 1. To back up the logic, not to supplant it. > > 2. To refute it. > >> Maybe this page might help: >> >> https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 > > No, it's more opinion. We have had loads of people telling us how hard it would be to split from the > EU, as that article does, and we have had loads of people telling us how easy it would be. Neither > side is being truthful, IMO. I visited a lot of sites while colleting data about the topic, and this one provided the best analysis with the most facts of both sides - pro and contra. I'm used to analyse things the strict scientific way, that is: 1. Collecting data (facts). 2. Looking for joint properties. 3. Deriving a formula or conclusion. If we bypass this modus operandi we leave safe ground and walk the field of politics or religion, where knowledge is replaced by beliefs (which cannot be verified). It is very hard to disprove beliefs with facts, because a fact cannot beat postulates and dogmas. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <niejig$unt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9587 |
On 29/05/2016 11:05, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: > > >> On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> >>> Then we should wait until you wrote down these new information >>> and cited the sources where people can verify your claims. >> >> There are at least three different classes of comment: >> >> 1. Opinion >> 2. Data >> 3. Logic >> >> There is much opinion around. Pretty much all of it can be ignored. >> Appeals to authority are never >> convincing. >> >> Data references are useful. But they can, of course, only tell us >> about the past and the present. >> >> Logic is always good, if it uses valid reasoning. >> >> Of the three, only data and logic are really useful. But they can be >> powerful if considered with an >> open mind. >> >> In my blog site I concentrate on data and logic. I may include opinion >> for two reasons: >> >> 1. To back up the logic, not to supplant it. >> >> 2. To refute it. >> >>> Maybe this page might help: >>> >>> https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 >> >> No, it's more opinion. We have had loads of people telling us how hard >> it would be to split from the >> EU, as that article does, and we have had loads of people telling us >> how easy it would be. Neither >> side is being truthful, IMO. > > > I visited a lot of sites while colleting data about the topic, > and this one provided the best analysis with the most facts of > both sides - pro and contra. > > I'm used to analyse things the strict scientific way, that is: > > 1. Collecting data (facts). > 2. Looking for joint properties. > 3. Deriving a formula or conclusion. Haven't you missed an important step? Without the fourth step all you have is a repetition of ideas. That's very interesting! I wonder if other people feel the same as you. We have had people here on both sides of the debate who have looked at prior data, found joint properties, and formed conclusions. Of course, each side found correlations that it wanted to find! > If we bypass this modus operandi we leave safe ground and walk > the field of politics or religion, where knowledge is replaced > by beliefs (which cannot be verified). > > It is very hard to disprove beliefs with facts, because a fact > cannot beat postulates and dogmas. Well, the point is that data (or, facts) can only reflect the past and the present. As a guide to the future we only have logic. People who rely on opinion (someone said that X will happen) as a guide to the future are putting themselves in an unstable position. For example, one paper said today that 88% of 600 economists reject Brexit. (The economists' _opinion_.) Yet there was a superb piece of journalism (i.e. asking questions on behalf of the public) from the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw It showed how unreliable economists had been in the past. (_Data_) And it went on to question an economist on the current predictions. It became clear that even their current predictions are based on false assumptions (i.e. they lacked _logic_)! -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nin5k1$qja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9590 |
James Harris wrote: > On 29/05/2016 11:05, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >> >>> On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>> >>>> Then we should wait until you wrote down these new information >>>> and cited the sources where people can verify your claims. >>> >>> There are at least three different classes of comment: >>> >>> 1. Opinion >>> 2. Data >>> 3. Logic >>> >>> There is much opinion around. Pretty much all of it can be ignored. >>> Appeals to authority are never >>> convincing. >>> >>> Data references are useful. But they can, of course, only tell us >>> about the past and the present. >>> >>> Logic is always good, if it uses valid reasoning. >>> >>> Of the three, only data and logic are really useful. But they can be >>> powerful if considered with an >>> open mind. >>> >>> In my blog site I concentrate on data and logic. I may include opinion >>> for two reasons: >>> >>> 1. To back up the logic, not to supplant it. >>> >>> 2. To refute it. >>> >>>> Maybe this page might help: >>>> >>>> https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 >>> >>> No, it's more opinion. We have had loads of people telling us how hard >>> it would be to split from the >>> EU, as that article does, and we have had loads of people telling us >>> how easy it would be. Neither side is being truthful, IMO. >> >> I visited a lot of sites while colleting data about the topic, >> and this one provided the best analysis with the most facts of >> both sides - pro and contra. >> >> I'm used to analyse things the strict scientific way, that is: >> >> 1. Collecting data (facts). >> 2. Looking for joint properties. >> 3. Deriving a formula or conclusion. > > Haven't you missed an important step? Without the fourth step all you have is a repetition of ideas. > > That's very interesting! I wonder if other people feel the same as you. We have had people here on > both sides of the debate who have looked at prior data, found joint properties, and formed > conclusions. Of course, each side found correlations that it wanted to find! Maybe you should enlighten me what that "fourth step" is? ;) I try to omit any "feelings" and keep everything as rational as possible. If people *interprete* data rather than to *evaluate* them, they do not "conclude", but *cheat*. A conclusion for po- litical or economical correlations should work with probability (e.g. by applying Bayes Theorem) rather than speculation. These tools are known and available for everyone. We just have to use them! >> If we bypass this modus operandi we leave safe ground and walk >> the field of politics or religion, where knowledge is replaced >> by beliefs (which cannot be verified). >> >> It is very hard to disprove beliefs with facts, because a fact >> cannot beat postulates and dogmas. > > Well, the point is that data (or, facts) can only reflect the past and the present. As a guide to > the future we only have logic. People who rely on opinion (someone said that X will happen) as a > guide to the future are putting themselves in an unstable position. > > For example, one paper said today that 88% of 600 economists reject Brexit. (The economists' > _opinion_.) Yet there was a superb piece of journalism (i.e. asking questions on behalf of the > public) from the BBC at > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw Requires Flash (not installed on my machine because of *severe* security deficiencies). > It showed how unreliable economists had been in the past. (_Data_) And it went on to question an > economist on the current predictions. It became clear that even their current predictions are based > on false assumptions (i.e. they lacked _logic_)! Might be. On the other hand (as you told above) this conclusion might be biased, as well, and there is much more in the package than pure economics (the European Idea has absolutely *nothing* to do with economics, and should never be reduced to commercial interests of whomever). I suggest to wait how the British folks will vote and how their decision will influence the future of Great Britain and the EU. We can analyse if and how rules are broken by the EU concerning GB and vice versa, but we cannot tell the future - that's some- thing we should leave to charlatans with crystal balls... ;) Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 08:46 +0100 |
| Subject | OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) |
| Message-ID | <nfn675$pqu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9443 |
On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > Myself scribbled: >> James Harris schrieb: Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe? When he was in the UK he got quite heavily involved in British politics over the EU referendum. I found that very surprising. I cannot ever remember similar intervention in UK politics by an American president or any other head of state. Before he arrived he wrote a newspaper article effectively warning UK voters against Brexit. And he spoke against it a number of times. The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of the queue". Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are. There were a few things that suggested he had discussed beforehand what to say at the press conference. A number of things he said directly reflected the UK government's wishes. (They are campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU.) For example, he said a US-UK trade deal could take up to ten years to complete. That is exactly what the UK government has said about trade deals generally. Yet it is widely accepted as scaremongering. For example, the US concluded a trade deal with Australia in under two years! I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more quickly than the EU one. I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's foreign policy. But that is not a reason to interfere with the democratic choices of people of the UK. Mr Obama has gone down in the estimation of many British citizens. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) |
| Message-ID | <20160426235843.695befb8@_> |
| In reply to | #9455 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > > Myself scribbled: > >> James Harris schrieb: > Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe? Rod here. I did. I had a comment, but you hadn't posted in a while, so I didn't bother to post it ... Frankly, I was truly shocked by his response. It was and is a head spinner for me. He's far, far left liberal on our political scale. He has never supported anything I support. Most Presidents who are Democrats support at least half of what I support. Ditto for Republicans. So, I was stunned when he suggested much the same thing I suggested to you about the U.K. staying in the E.U. It was truly a "WTF?" moment here. He also butted in where his comments probably weren't asked for, wanted, or even liked, but it seems he felt your media outlets weren't covering the entire story. That could be part of his strategy, e.g., anger them so they do what's he thinks is best, but I don't know how he works. > When he was in the UK he got quite heavily involved in British > politics over the EU referendum. I found that very surprising. I > cannot ever remember similar intervention in UK politics by an > American president or any other head of state. Many in the U.S. see him as a socialist, which is why they refer to him as a "Muslim." I'm not sure what he did there, but my guess is that being able to easily push even more socialist policies in the E.U. probably excited him. He has a really difficult time pushing such policies here. There is very strong under-current of individualism and self-reliance in the U.S. Socialist policies or government solutions, such as forced healthcare, generally don't fit well with that. > Before he arrived he wrote a newspaper article effectively warning UK > voters against Brexit. And he spoke against it a number of times. > > The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then, > in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of > the queue". > > Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are. I doubt he used the word "queue," i.e., it's mostly British or computer science related. The word "line," e.g., "end of the line" or "back of the line" or "next in line" or "last in line" etc is used in the U.S. What was reported here was that it could take a long time to negotiate for new trading arrangements with the U.K. since there are few in place. The idea that the U.S. doesn't have many direct trading agreements with the U.K. and Britain seemed strange to me to the point of being incorrect, but I'd have to do some research to find out. The U.S. and Britain were involved in all sorts of trade, historically. > There were a few things that suggested he had discussed beforehand > what to say at the press conference. A number of things he said > directly reflected the UK government's wishes. (They are campaigning > for the UK to remain in the EU.) Well, it's up to the politicians to represent your best interest, so if it appears they aren't, then they need to justify why they are doing something other that what the majority of people desire. Even then, something may be pushed upon you due to your laws, e.g., like equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the U.S. Most here are Christians who fundamentally oppose that. The 14th Amendment "Equal Protection Clause" of the constitution is used to justify that, but doing so violates the 1st Amendment "Right of Assembly" and the resulting freedom of association, and also the 1st Amendement "Right of Freedom of Religion." How do you resolve conflicting "absolute" rights? ... > For example, he said a US-UK trade deal could take up to ten years to > complete. That is exactly what the UK government has said about trade > deals generally. Yet it is widely accepted as scaremongering. For > example, the US concluded a trade deal with Australia in under two > years! Most likely, it was something the U.S. wanted very badly ... The U.S. got whatever it truly wanted, which was probably something that Australia didn't even recognize it was negotiating over, i.e., indirect or secondary. It's very likely the U.S. government assumes that trade with the U.K. will continue as-is without much fanfare either way. All countries today need to import and export product to survive. It's nearly impossible to exist without trade. Even if it takes ten years, that's just two "blinks of the eye" away. A new trade arrangement with the U.S. could be very advantageous to the U.K. The U.S. market has basically the same size GDP as the E.U. It might even increase U.K.'s trade with larger U.S. trading partners, e.g., Canada and Mexico. Many American companies have subsidiaries in Mexico and even the quality of some purely Mexican products has become very good. Of course, I still think that long-term, the U.K. is better off fixing the E.U. arrangement than rejecting it. It's very likely that as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push the E.U. toward more reforms. When they do, the U.K. could be a very strong ally to them in that regard. Power shifts over time. > I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that > with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that > of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more > quickly than the EU one. One area with would likely be a strong point of contention with the U.S. is the British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and Commonwealth countries that are being used as tax havens, e.g., Guernsey, Jersey, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Turks & Caicos, Anquilla, Montserrat, Gibraltar, Isl of Man, etc ... Wow, you guys have a lot of them. I'm sure that that is a problematic thorn in the side of the U.S., E.U., OECD, U.N., etc. So, if the U.K. Brexits and negotiates a new trade deal with the U.S., you can bet that the U.S. will want full tax disclosure from these British controlled or related countries, i.e., monies, citizenship, beneficial owners, legal recourse, etc. The U.S. created FATCA upon which the OECD CRS tax reporting is based. So, the U.S. is likely to push FATCA or even the full OECD CRS upon the U.K. territories. > I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's > foreign policy. Why? What difference would this make? ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 00:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) |
| Message-ID | <20160427000845.304beb4c@_> |
| In reply to | #9458 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 23:58:43 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: Corrections: > as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push [...] democratic it's likely that they will push > One area with would likely One are which would likely RP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 06:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nfpj6d$7tp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9458 |
On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>> Myself scribbled: >>>> James Harris schrieb: > >> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe? > > Rod here. I did. I had a comment, but you hadn't posted in a while, > so I didn't bother to post it ... > > Frankly, I was truly shocked by his response. It was and is a head > spinner for me. Me too. I actually feel a bit stunned that a head of state should intervene in the way he did. What was it about his response that shocked you? > He's far, far left liberal on our political scale. He > has never supported anything I support. Most Presidents who are > Democrats support at least half of what I support. Ditto for > Republicans. So, I was stunned when he suggested much the same thing I > suggested to you about the U.K. staying in the E.U. Interestingly, so far Mr Obama's comments seem to have angered rather than convinced people. That said, when people go to vote I suspect many will be swayed by "fear of the unknown" of leaving the EU. ... > He also butted in where his comments probably > weren't asked for, wanted, or even liked, but it seems he felt your > media outlets weren't covering the entire story. That could be part of > his strategy, e.g., anger them so they do what's he thinks is best, but > I don't know how he works. IIRC a survey result was that 55% said he should have kept his thoughts to himself with only 30% or something feeling his intervention was acceptable. ... >> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then, >> in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of >> the queue". >> >> Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are. > > I doubt he used the word "queue," But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British audience. And what a thing to say! Here's a video as evidence. http://www.lbc.co.uk/obama-uk-us-trade-deal-would-be-back-of-queue-129162 Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would find itself at the back of the line! Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the UK is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want to be treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK punches above its weight. For example: UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with its population of over a billion. UK GDP larger than that of Russia. UK a member of NATO, permanent seat on UN Security Council, G7 economy, G20 industrial country, second strongest military in the EU, nuclear power, etc. Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president. > i.e., it's mostly British or computer > science related. The word "line," e.g., "end of the line" or "back of > the line" or "next in line" or "last in line" etc is used in the U.S. > > What was reported here was that it could take a long time to negotiate > for new trading arrangements with the U.K. since there are few in > place. It's interesting to hear how things get reported over there. > The idea that the U.S. doesn't have many direct trading > agreements with the U.K. and Britain seemed strange to me to the point > of being incorrect, but I'd have to do some research to find out. The > U.S. and Britain were involved in all sorts of trade, historically. Apparently, trade can be done without trade agreements, under WTO rules. IIRC the UK and US have fairly balanced trade with each other at the moment, each buying about $56 bn from each other per year, each having significant investments in the other's territory, and each having about a million expats from the other. ... (snipped, but noted a lot of good comments) > Of course, I still think that long-term, the U.K. is better off > fixing the E.U. arrangement than rejecting it. That could be along the lines that Obama thinks. At least that he wants the UK in the EU as a liaison or as an influence. In terms of heritage and values and the way we in the UK think we are far closer to the USA than we are to Europe. However, the EU is sucking the identity, life and spirit out of the UK (IMO). The UK has no power to 'fix' the EU. Since something called, IIRC, the Single European Act the EU has been the entity with the primary power. What it says takes precedence over the UK's parliament and over the UK's courts. And we as members of the public cannot normally vote against the EU. It is a fait accompli. We are in, and its rules take precedence over ours. This referendum will be the first chance we have had in over 40 years. > It's very likely that > as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push > the E.U. toward more reforms. When they do, the U.K. could be a > very strong ally to them in that regard. Power shifts over time. Unfortunately, things are heading the other way. The undemocratic EU quite literally chooses to ignore democratic votes. There has not been a really big vote against it such as I hope the UK will deliver but when small countries have voted against an EU measure they have been ignored or the result has been countermanded in some way. I hadn't realised until recently that the EU really does put its own existence and primary designs above everything else, including its own treaty rules. They seemed proud to have broken their treaty rules in order to rescue the euro. As one of its presidents, Jean-Claude Juncker, said "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties". In other words, they put the EU project above any dissenting voice, even a democratic one. The EU really has become a very dangerous organisation. >> I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that >> with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that >> of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more >> quickly than the EU one. > > One area with would likely be a strong point of contention with the > U.S. is the British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and > Commonwealth countries that are being used as tax havens, e.g., > Guernsey, Jersey, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, > Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Turks & Caicos, Anquilla, Montserrat, > Gibraltar, Isl of Man, etc ... Wow, you guys have a lot of them. I'm > sure that that is a problematic thorn in the side of the U.S., E.U., > OECD, U.N., etc. > > So, if the U.K. Brexits and negotiates a new trade deal with the U.S., > you can bet that the U.S. will want full tax disclosure from these > British controlled or related countries, i.e., monies, citizenship, > beneficial owners, legal recourse, etc. The U.S. created FATCA upon > which the OECD CRS tax reporting is based. So, the U.S. is likely to > push FATCA or even the full OECD CRS upon the U.K. territories. That all sounds good. It was America which finally blew apart the FIFA scandal. I am not a football (soccer) fan but I hated the corruption which had been apparently going on in FIFA for a long time, and I am glad that American investigators did something about it. Maybe something similar will happen with tax havens and avoidance/evasion schemes. >> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's >> foreign policy. > > Why? What difference would this make? ... Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal with rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have said that he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 05:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160427052535.75872521@_> |
| In reply to | #9461 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > >>> Myself scribbled: > >>>> James Harris schrieb: > >> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU > >> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the > >> back of the queue". > >> > > > > I doubt he used the word "queue," > > But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had > planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British > audience. And what a thing to say! Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech. > Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire > here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when > America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would > find itself at the back of the line! Does America really need the help militarily, or does it do so to ensure it's partners are contributing to the cause and have some "skin in the game" of their own? I'd argue the latter. I don't think we really need any military help at this point in history when dealing with anyone. > Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the > UK is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want > to be treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK > punches above its weight. Well, it seems to remain sovereign in the sense you mean, the UK will need to Brexit. If that's the goal, it's not a hard choice. Make up some sketchy slogan, "Sovereignty or nothing!" or even recycle old American revolutionary phrases, like "Live free or die!" It fits the anarchist vein in the U.K. very well, but using the last one would actually be a bit ironic. ;-) > For example: > UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with > its population of over a billion. You'd think India would be doing better ... They speak English. They have a legal system based on British Common law. Maybe, British colonization did more damage than good? > UK GDP larger than that of Russia. That's unfortunate for Russia. Old wounds die hard, but the U.S., as the dominant single economy, is likely needed for their economic comeback. > Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be > pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president. As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony anymore. We are the primary superpower in the world and the largest economy. Russia's economy is not sustainable as is. They suffer from "Dutch disease". Their dependence on oil exports and other natural resources is driving that. Their military strength is in decline, but they are still a serious threat because they have so many nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease > >> I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that > >> with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than > >> that of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more > >> quickly than the EU one. > > > > One area with would likely be a strong point of contention with the > > U.S. is the British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and > > Commonwealth countries that are being used as tax havens, e.g., > > Guernsey, Jersey, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, > > Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Turks & Caicos, Anquilla, Montserrat, > > Gibraltar, Isl of Man, etc ... Wow, you guys have a lot of them. > > I'm sure that that is a problematic thorn in the side of the U.S., > > E.U., OECD, U.N., etc. > > > > So, if the U.K. Brexits and negotiates a new trade deal with the > > U.S., you can bet that the U.S. will want full tax disclosure from > > these British controlled or related countries, i.e., monies, > > citizenship, beneficial owners, legal recourse, etc. The U.S. > > created FATCA upon which the OECD CRS tax reporting is based. So, > > the U.S. is likely to push FATCA or even the full OECD CRS upon the > > U.K. territories. > > That all sounds good. > > It was America which finally blew apart the FIFA scandal. I am not a > football (soccer) fan but I hated the corruption which had been > apparently going on in FIFA for a long time, and I am glad that > American investigators did something about it. Maybe something > similar will happen with tax havens and avoidance/evasion schemes. I'm not so sure ... All those trillions of dollars the U.S. companies are diverting offshore is being invested in other countries and workers. I.e., it may be good for the U.S. taxman, but it'll likely put a dent in the economies of other countries if the U.S. companies are forced to withdraw those funds to pay taxes. This is why I don't understand why E.U. countries, especially France, are so insistent on ending tax avoidance and evasion schemes. They're being enriched by the U.S. It's not like France doesn't have tax breaks on things like research and development subsidiaries. > >> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of > >> America's foreign policy. > > > > Why? What difference would this make? ... > > Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal > with rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have > said that he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe. > But, he can simply set the policy to be the same for both. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 17:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nfqq4u$kmf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9467 |
On 27/04/2016 10:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>>>> Myself scribbled: >>>>>> James Harris schrieb: > >>>> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU >>>> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the >>>> back of the queue". >>>> >>> >>> I doubt he used the word "queue," >> >> But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had >> planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British >> audience. And what a thing to say! > > Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech. I see Ted Cruz has 'slapped Obama down' for what he said in the UK. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/664848/Ted-Cruz-Barack-Obama-front-of-queue-Brexit-trade-deal-EU-referendum-Donald-Trump What is Cruz like? Does he have any chance of beating Trump to the Republican nomination? >> Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire >> here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when >> America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would >> find itself at the back of the line! > > Does America really need the help militarily, or does it do so to ensure > it's partners are contributing to the cause and have some "skin in the > game" of their own? I'd argue the latter. I don't think we really need > any military help at this point in history when dealing with anyone. No, America doesn't need military help. Though it may find things easier with allies taking a small role. I don't think the comment was serious, unless it was talking about moral support. >> Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the >> UK is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want >> to be treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK >> punches above its weight. > > Well, it seems to remain sovereign in the sense you mean, the UK > will need to Brexit. Well, we have lost significant sovereignty already. And if we vote In then for a number of reasons I expect we will lose a lot more. Interestingly, it seems that a significant number of people may vote to stay In not because they like or understand the EU but because they like Europe. The EU and Europe are two different things. Such people think that Brexit means some form of isolation. That's a false view and the campaigners need to try to disabuse them of it of they could lose the vote on a misconception. Just on that, US former general David Petraeus wrote an article in a UK newspaper urging Brits not to leave the EU. Here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/27/david-petraeus-brexit-would-weaken-the-wests-war-on-terror/ When I read it I realised that he thought Brexit was about the UK isolating itself. That is very wrong. That's not what Brexit is about. We have an uphill struggle to get people to realise what leaving the EU means. It is not difficult to understand but there are a lot of false views out there. In case I didn't already post this, this is my response to people whose views are like that of Petraeus: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation Possibly Obama's view is similar. > If that's the goal, it's not a hard choice. > Make up some sketchy slogan, "Sovereignty or nothing!" or even > recycle old American revolutionary phrases, like "Live free or die!" > It fits the anarchist vein in the U.K. very well, but using the last > one would actually be a bit ironic. ;-) :-) >> For example: >> UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with >> its population of over a billion. > > You'd think India would be doing better ... They speak English. > They have a legal system based on British Common law. Maybe, > British colonization did more damage than good? Frankly, it's too hard to judge. Possibly they have a more important focus in life than just economics. We do tend to be a bit money focussed in the west. There is more to life. >> UK GDP larger than that of Russia. > > That's unfortunate for Russia. Old wounds die hard, but > the U.S., as the dominant single economy, is likely needed > for their economic comeback. Sure. I just found it amazing that their GDP was lower than ours. We are not much more than a tiny island with dwindling natural resources. Russia is vast, a former superpower, and has the oil and gas to be very wealthy. But they are not. Very odd. >> Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be >> pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president. > > As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony anymore. I think that Britain has treated people even worse than yourselves. People starved in Ireland when there was grain in English ports. Britain used its navy to force China to accept opium which harmed its people. Etc. I may be British and not know much about our history but I have heard some bad things. That said, the attitudes that led to those bad actions are very much in the past. If anything the UK has now become too soft and lost its motivation and positivity. > We are the primary superpower in the world and the largest economy. > Russia's economy is not sustainable as is. They suffer from "Dutch > disease". Their dependence on oil exports and other natural resources > is driving that. Their military strength is in decline, but they are > still a serious threat because they have so many nuclear weapons. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease Interesting. ... >>>> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of >>>> America's foreign policy. >>> >>> Why? What difference would this make? ... >> >> Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal >> with rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have >> said that he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe. >> > > But, he can simply set the policy to be the same for both. Well, that maybe has merit but for subtle reasons. Obama is possibly under the same impression as Petraeus, above, and thinks that an independent UK would be isolated from the EU. At the risk of posting too many links to my own pages, here's what I came up with when I thought about what would probably happen if we left the EU. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1113/The-UK's-influence-on-the-EU-post-Brexit Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small matters that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up to a point) on large matters. Various people would still want Europe to speak with one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The attempts to achieve a common position would actually give us a greater influence. As an independent nation again the UK could not simply be voted down or outnumbered. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web