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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 09:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngcbfp$fph$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9483 |
On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: > > >> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe? > > > Queen Elisabeth's birthday attracted much more attention in German > TV than Obama's short stop at Downing Street. Seems he is eager to > push TTIP as last political act before leaving the scene... That is surprising. Why would Queen Elizabeth's birthday attract German TV coverage? Is it perhaps a reminder of the days when Europe was largely about monarchies? -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhqbl1$jto$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9492 |
James Harris schrieb:
> On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?
>>
>> Queen Elisabeth's birthday attracted much more attention in German
>> TV than Obama's short stop at Downing Street. Seems he is eager to
>> push TTIP as last political act before leaving the scene...
>
> That is surprising. Why would Queen Elizabeth's birthday attract German TV coverage? Is it perhaps a
> reminder of the days when Europe was largely about monarchies?
The entire print industry lives from the fact that people -
especially women - are more interested in the lives of VIPs
and peers - these exist all over Europe - than in their own
lives. You can find similar behaviour all over the world in
countries like the USA, France or Germany as well as in re-
presentative or constitutional monarchies like GB, Spain or
Belgium. 12 out of 28 EU members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe
*still* are monarchies in the 21st century...
BTW: Mountbatten = Battenberg
Windsor = Saxe-Coburg (Sachsen-Coburg) & Gotha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 07:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfn3el$hhv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9424 |
On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > 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] ... >> 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. You seem to have misunderstood my comments on the rise of anti-EU feeling. I cited examples of increasing support for anti-EU parties as evidence of dissatisfaction with the EU. Nothing I said should be interpreted as endorsing those parties. >>> 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). It is not a case of liking or not liking big businesses. The fact is that the EU gives them privileges and protections against their competitors. That makes them complacent. It also puts up prices we pay. As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller suppliers. > 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. No one is suggesting imposing import tariffs. (I don't know why you would think that.) There are border controls in place now. Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of that are people who want to scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU countries will want to impose tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have! > 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)... Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel in neighbouring countries etc. Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU ... >> 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 The royals don't set their own budget or expenses. That decision is made by politicians according to what they feel the royals need to pay their staff and expenses. The queen has public duties. The younger royals do also but often have their own secular employment. Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their expenses. Every penny. And all their claims are logged where anyone can see: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/ You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician claimed. By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians are given _unchecked_ expenses. They get the money whether they need it or not. They don't have to justify what they spend. And anything they don't spend they keep, topping up an already large salary. For example, here is a small snippet from one MEP describing his first day at work. --- My next call was to the ‘general expenses’ official, who told me I was entitled to nearly £3,500 a month as a bloc grant. Was this to rent an office? I asked. No, no, he replied, we give you offices in Brussels and in Strasbourg. ‘For computers and equipment, then?’ ‘No, you get that, too. It’s for other incidental expenses like postage and petrol.’ ‘Seriously? Three-and-a-half grand a month?’ ‘As I say, sir, it’s an unconditional grant. You don’t have to submit receipts. You just nominate which bank account it goes into.’ --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530980/Please-sack-Euro-MP-DANIEL-HANNAN-money-perks-gets-Brussels-making-Britons-lives-harder-begging-nation-courage-job.html With people across Europe struggling financially, and many unable to find work, the way EU politicians feather their own nests out of public money is completely unacceptable. It is not just the money they take home that is the problem. It is how such luxurious living makes them insensitive to the needs of their fellow citizens. Such remoteness tends to make people self absorbed, overconfident. The remedy is simple. They should periodically have to ask the people for permission to rule. But they don't. And over time that leads to separation. ... >>> 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? Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule. Perhaps an oligarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy > 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: In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what they will do if they win an election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both before and after they get power. People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the politicians. Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too long. Politicians should not have such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time! ... > 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 system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case for minorities. That has happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up supporting the minority. >>> 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). No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on something we could do. We wouldn't need someone else to tell us that we must. If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science research or air quality improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives - they can still do so. We don't need to be in the same club to cooperate. >> 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. Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be part of. > 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. Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and cooperating. But that's not the plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or working together. The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that the EU will put up barriers to Brits if they leave the club. ... > It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the > last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade... The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the centre is, I believe, not sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it needs fundamental democratic reform. ... > 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. That is what the EU does. It tries to force 500 million people to do what it thinks is right. And it gets away with it because it never has to put itself up for election. I don't know whether the UK will vote to stay in the EU or leave it. But people in Sweden and elsewhere have said that if the UK leaves then they want their own referenda so that they have a chance to get out too. People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a supranational union which has been granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of its existence so that its leaders know they are accountable to the people. ... >>>> 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. I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was the goal. > 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 I don't think people want to be nationalistic. If the EU satisfied their needs they would probably welcome it. But its disastrous policies have caused very high unemployment in Greece and Spain, for example, and people who cannot get work naturally become dissatisfied with the system which caused it. > and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get > oppression and poverty in the long run. The EU is helping to cause poverty now! > I don't know why folks > support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts > of a few superrich, Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big corporates, the bigger fishing businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds when pushed but it is really designed to maintain protections on vested interests. > 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... Not a good thing to talk about! > 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. I don't claim my opinions as anything other than opinions. That's why I put my name at the bottom of a page - to indicate that it is just my comment. I would rather appeal to logic and reason than to cite a supposed authority. I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs etc. taken from reputable sources, and provided links to the originals. > 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 Well, I read them. That's why I have been away for so long. ;-) I am not sure I understood them all but I can see you have put a lot of work and thought into them. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 00:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160427000115.69a44482@_> |
| In reply to | #9453 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller > suppliers. Rod again. I'd rather see much competition between larger suppliers. Larger suppliers have economies of scale, economies of scope, economies of agglomeration, and can control more factors of production. This means their overall costs of production are much lower than a smaller supplier. Larger suppliers can afford to invest in specialized equipment and processes which produce better quality products. In fact, there are many cases where the optimal economic solution for customers is a single monopoly, e.g., former national U.S. telephone monopoly had the lowest service prices but no product innovation. Unfortunately, the opposite is true too, i.e., monopolies can be the worst solution on price. > > 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)... > > Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain > wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who > want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought > of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel > in neighbouring countries etc. It is true that even trivial costs are important to a car manufacturer. With millions of units of expected cars even a few cents per car becomes millions of dollars of upfront costs that they must borrow. > Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at > > http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU I was wondering why we hadn't seen a post from you in a while ... Well, the "Supremacy" as that article calls it, is what we have in the U.S. The federal government has "supremacy" on the issues it controls. The constitution defines what it controls and everything else is for the "member" states of the U.S. So, I guess we don't fear this situation as much as you do? ... Of course, the two governments (state, federal) that each U.S. citizen is ruled by, were developed and integrated at the same time in history. The U.K. is likely giving up much U.K. "federal" level power by transforming into just a "state" under an E.U. "federal" level government. It seems, from Wikipedia, that the E.U. is basically has separation of powers like the U.S. and that portions of it are elected. So, it just needs to be banged into shape a bit. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfpt0a$30k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9459 |
On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller >> suppliers. > > Rod again. I'd rather see much competition between larger suppliers. > Larger suppliers have economies of scale, economies of scope, economies > of agglomeration, and can control more factors of production. This means > their overall costs of production are much lower than a smaller > supplier. Larger suppliers can afford to invest in specialized > equipment and processes which produce better quality products. In > fact, there are many cases where the optimal economic solution for > customers is a single monopoly, e.g., former national U.S. telephone > monopoly had the lowest service prices but no product innovation. > Unfortunately, the opposite is true too, i.e., monopolies can be the > worst solution on price. Yes, monopolies tend to be inefficient and therefore costly. On the other hand, when private firms provide public services people complain that they are making excess profits. Many services here used to be run by the government but are now run by private firms. That leads to claims of profiteering. As a solution what do you think about the idea of leaving them run by private firms but adding the following? The idea is for a government to set up a department to be able to compete against private firms in certain circumstances. Where there is suspicion that a private firm is profiteering from running a public service the government would see if it could set up a department to compete. Where the government could not compete with the private firms it would say so and thus address complaints of profiteering. Where the government could compete, on the other hand, it would 'threaten' to enter the market. If that did not drive prices down then the government would go ahead and set up the department and begin to compete. After a period of time the government would review the situation and either pull out or carry on running the service. The goals would be 1) to keep the private sector genuinely competing, 2) to provide price reassurance to the public, 3) to prevent politicians from unnecessarily taking the whole service into public ownership. Any good? I know that for some services there would be issues wrt buying in to the market. >>> 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)... >> >> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain >> wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who >> want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought >> of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel >> in neighbouring countries etc. > > It is true that even trivial costs are important to a car > manufacturer. With millions of units of expected cars even a few cents > per car becomes millions of dollars of upfront costs that they must > borrow. Well, the UK has its own currency. Much of Europe uses the euro and we have the pound. Therefore there is marked uncertainty caused by variable exchange rates. IMO that is more significant a fear for motor manufacturers. Yet plenty of cars made in EU countries are bought here and vice versa. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160427054205.18d7f33a@_> |
| In reply to | #9464 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:00 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller > >> suppliers. > > > > Rod again. I'd rather see much competition between larger > > suppliers. Larger suppliers have economies of scale, economies of > > scope, economies of agglomeration, and can control more factors of > > production. This means their overall costs of production are much > > lower than a smaller supplier. Larger suppliers can afford to > > invest in specialized equipment and processes which produce better > > quality products. In fact, there are many cases where the optimal > > economic solution for customers is a single monopoly, e.g., former > > national U.S. telephone monopoly had the lowest service prices but > > no product innovation. Unfortunately, the opposite is true too, > > i.e., monopolies can be the worst solution on price. > > Yes, monopolies tend to be inefficient and therefore costly. > > On the other hand, when private firms provide public services people > complain that they are making excess profits. > > Many services here used to be run by the government but are now run > by private firms. That leads to claims of profiteering. > > As a solution what do you think about the idea of leaving them run by > private firms but adding the following? > > The idea is for a government to set up a department to be able to > compete against private firms in certain circumstances. > > Where there is suspicion that a private firm is profiteering from > running a public service the government would see if it could set up > a department to compete. > > Where the government could not compete with the private firms it > would say so and thus address complaints of profiteering. > > Where the government could compete, on the other hand, it would > 'threaten' to enter the market. If that did not drive prices down > then the government would go ahead and set up the department and > begin to compete. > > After a period of time the government would review the situation and > either pull out or carry on running the service. > > The goals would be 1) to keep the private sector genuinely competing, > 2) to provide price reassurance to the public, 3) to prevent > politicians from unnecessarily taking the whole service into public > ownership. > > Any good? I think you've made a flawed assumption. You've assumed that the government's department will be cost effective in it's competition. Nothing in the U.S. federal government is cost competitive. It doesn't have to be. As a government department or agency, nothing forces it to be profitable. I.e., the government department's costs and prices would be high and it wouldn't be able to detect lack of competition. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfqoep$e66$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9468 |
On 27/04/2016 10:42, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:00 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> Yes, monopolies tend to be inefficient and therefore costly. >> >> On the other hand, when private firms provide public services people >> complain that they are making excess profits. >> >> Many services here used to be run by the government but are now run >> by private firms. That leads to claims of profiteering. >> >> As a solution what do you think about the idea of leaving them run by >> private firms but adding the following? >> >> The idea is for a government to set up a department to be able to >> compete against private firms in certain circumstances. >> >> Where there is suspicion that a private firm is profiteering from >> running a public service the government would see if it could set up >> a department to compete. >> >> Where the government could not compete with the private firms it >> would say so and thus address complaints of profiteering. >> >> Where the government could compete, on the other hand, it would >> 'threaten' to enter the market. If that did not drive prices down >> then the government would go ahead and set up the department and >> begin to compete. >> >> After a period of time the government would review the situation and >> either pull out or carry on running the service. >> >> The goals would be 1) to keep the private sector genuinely competing, >> 2) to provide price reassurance to the public, 3) to prevent >> politicians from unnecessarily taking the whole service into public >> ownership. >> >> Any good? > > I think you've made a flawed assumption. You've assumed that the > government's department will be cost effective in it's competition. > Nothing in the U.S. federal government is cost competitive. It doesn't > have to be. As a government department or agency, nothing forces it to > be profitable. I.e., the government department's costs and prices would > be high and it wouldn't be able to detect lack of competition. I can tell that you have understood the suggestion. What I would say is that it has multiple goals, one of which is to reassure the public that the service they are getting from the private sector could not be bettered in public hands. As such, if the government found it could not do the job more cheaply then the public could be advised thereof, thus giving some reassurance. Also, although public departments have always been believed to be less efficient I am not aware of any case in the modern era wherein a public department has tried to compete against commercial firms. In theory, the public department could be cheaper if it did not make a profit. For that reason, perhaps the public department could aim for a small 'profit' which would go into the public purse. Having to require them to make a 'profit' would make it a level playing field and not disadvantage commercial competitors. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160427180515.2e5c2fe0@_> |
| In reply to | #9470 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:16:30 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 10:42, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:00 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, monopolies tend to be inefficient and therefore costly. > >> > >> On the other hand, when private firms provide public services > >> people complain that they are making excess profits. > >> > >> Many services here used to be run by the government but are now run > >> by private firms. That leads to claims of profiteering. > >> > >> As a solution what do you think about the idea of leaving them run > >> by private firms but adding the following? > >> > >> The idea is for a government to set up a department to be able to > >> compete against private firms in certain circumstances. > >> > >> Where there is suspicion that a private firm is profiteering from > >> running a public service the government would see if it could set > >> up a department to compete. > >> > >> Where the government could not compete with the private firms it > >> would say so and thus address complaints of profiteering. > >> > >> Where the government could compete, on the other hand, it would > >> 'threaten' to enter the market. If that did not drive prices down > >> then the government would go ahead and set up the department and > >> begin to compete. > >> > >> After a period of time the government would review the situation > >> and either pull out or carry on running the service. > >> > >> The goals would be 1) to keep the private sector genuinely > >> competing, 2) to provide price reassurance to the public, 3) to > >> prevent politicians from unnecessarily taking the whole service > >> into public ownership. > >> > >> Any good? > > > > I think you've made a flawed assumption. You've assumed that the > > government's department will be cost effective in it's competition. > > Nothing in the U.S. federal government is cost competitive. It > > doesn't have to be. As a government department or agency, nothing > > forces it to be profitable. I.e., the government department's > > costs and prices would be high and it wouldn't be able to detect > > lack of competition. > > I can tell that you have understood the suggestion. What I would say > is that it has multiple goals, one of which is to reassure the public > that the service they are getting from the private sector could not > be bettered in public hands. As such, if the government found it > could not do the job more cheaply then the public could be advised > thereof, thus giving some reassurance. > > Also, although public departments have always been believed to be > less efficient I am not aware of any case in the modern era wherein a > public department has tried to compete against commercial firms. > > In theory, the public department could be cheaper if it did not make > a profit. For that reason, perhaps the public department could aim > for a small 'profit' which would go into the public purse. Having to > require them to make a 'profit' would make it a level playing field > and not disadvantage commercial competitors. > If you could assure the government department made a profit somehow or just a bit of free cash flow, even if only a dollar, you could assume that you've established the worst case scenario for a minimally viable company in that industry. Any prices worse than that department set, then the companies in the open market are most definitely ripping customers off. I'm not sure you need to go to such lengths. E.g., in the U.S., our IRS (taxes) develops cash flow models for industries they audit regularly, but usually only for cash heavy businesses like restaurants, coin operated laundries, etc, to prevent money laundering from skimming of revenues. Even though the models are used for tax auditing, the models are (or once were) publicly available since they were produced at taxpayer expense. I wouldn't doubt it if your HMRC does much the same in terms of creating such models for businesses. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 09:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfpt3u$30k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9459 |
On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at >> >> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU > > I was wondering why we hadn't seen a post from you in a while ... Yes, setting up that web site was, er, fun. It took a lot of work to get the PHP code working as I am not a PHP programmer. And after using it for a few projects I don't want to be! In addition, writing the articles has been time consuming. There were also sundry matters such as getting URL rewriting working properly, writing code (in Python) to generate a sitemap and the page index, learning about CSS, and dealing with an issue caused by the provider. Still, it is there now, and I keep adding to it as new issues come up. As you say, that helps explain why I have been quiet for a while. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 09:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfptrh$5t5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9459 |
On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... > Well, the "Supremacy" as that article calls it, is what we have in the > U.S. The federal government has "supremacy" on the issues it controls. > The constitution defines what it controls and everything else is for the > "member" states of the U.S. So, I guess we don't fear this situation > as much as you do? There are some differences. First, in the US you have a democracy. The EU governmental system, by contrast, is principally not democratic. It is more an oligarchy. Yes, really! Details below. Second, the various countries which are members of the EU are very diverse. Their economies differ greatly, and they have different attitudes. Some are powerful and others are weak. That has led to high unemployment in Greece and Spain. And it leads to the UK's voice in the EU being swamped. Third, as member states are not allowed things such as being able to make their own trade deals, membership of the EU leads to the UK's voice in the world being countermanded or even opposed. We have to accept what the EU organises whether we like it or not. > ... Of course, the two governments (state, federal) > that each U.S. citizen is ruled by, were developed and integrated at the > same time in history. The U.K. is likely giving up much U.K. "federal" > level power by transforming into just a "state" under an E.U. "federal" > level government. It seems, from Wikipedia, that the E.U. is basically > has separation of powers like the U.S. and that portions of it are > elected. So, it just needs to be banged into shape a bit. It is a complicated system but, AIUI: The only elected part is the European Parliament (EP) but in many ways it is mainly a rubber stamping body. The EP can have so many laws to pass in unit time that by the time a member of the parliament has had the words translated into his or her language the issue that he or she is supposed to be voting on has gone and the next one is the 'current' one! So they might miss the one they meant to approve and approve the following one instead. Perhaps anyone wanting to get a measure through will be happy if it follows something popular. ;-) Alright, that is probably unusual but they do have to approve a high volume of trade legislation at times. The EU likes to have rules on everything from cabbages to kettles to candles. The main EU power resides with the European Commission. It is totally unelected. Its head is a person who is nominated by the heads of the member states and who then faces a ratifying vote by the parliament. He or she requires no approval of the people. Once in place, the Commission's head /chooses/ a person from each member state to work in his or her team. As there are 28 members, that results in a team of 29 people who are entirely unelected. The Commission is the nearest thing to an EU government. They are the only ones who can propose legislation and are in the process of acquiring more powers as an executive. Legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the "Council of the EU". Again, just like the Commission, the Council of the EU is unelected. So, the only elected part is the Parliament. In that, the UK has only about a 10% stake. So if something comes up that we in the UK do not want we are powerless to prevent it. As I say, it is complex. There is also a European Council (not the same as the Council of the EU, believe it or not). They are the ones who set the EU's strategic direction. The UK is 1/28th of the Council of the EU and 1/28th of the European Council. Forgive the long explanation but I wanted to explain that * only one part is elected * that part has little power * the UK has 1/10th or 1/28th of a say in the EU's machinations The situation is a bit more complex but the basic point is that the UK has little or no power to 'bang the EU into shape'! We do not have that authority and our Prime Minister has tried but cannot get agreement for change. We are basically stuck with the EU as it is. One thing that might cause a change is if the UK were to leave. The EU would lose about £8 bn per year. It would also have to work with us to get the UK on board rather than continually outvoting us! -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ngapjp$plg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9453 |
James Harris wrote: > On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris schrieb: >>> On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>>> James Harris wrote: >>>>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > You seem to have misunderstood my comments on the rise of anti-EU feeling. I cited examples of > increasing support for anti-EU parties as evidence of dissatisfaction with the EU. Nothing I said > should be interpreted as endorsing those parties. All of them want to pocket all benefits coming along with the (otherwise attacked) EU regulation, but deny to share a small piece of their wealth with poor(er) countries. In my opinion, Brexit is the same thing wrapped in cloth of different colour with slightly different muster. Sorry, but that's my *personal* point of view (which probably is not very objective)... >>>> 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). > > It is not a case of liking or not liking big businesses. The fact is that the EU gives them > privileges and protections against their competitors. That makes them complacent. It also puts up > prices we pay. > > As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller suppliers. Have a look at the *real* world market: Smaller suppliers are swallowed by large ones who are swallowed by huge ones and so on. The current economic model knows just one (holy) paradigm called "growth". Having a closer look at this paradigm shows, that even healthy companies are sold out, because they do not generate enough interest yield. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_SE >> 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. > > No one is suggesting imposing import tariffs. (I don't know why you would think that.) > > There are border controls in place now. > > Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of that are people who want to > scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU countries will want to impose > tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have! How do you think a break out works and why should the EU keep their borders to any non-EU country open? If GB does not want to belong to a united Europe, why should we want to keep open borders to GB or dispense with collecting duty or taxes? With Brexit, GB is just another trading partner like China, Russia or the USA. >> 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)... > > Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain wanting to isolate itself. That > is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be > thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel in neighbouring > countries etc. > > Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at > > http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU I guess you still did not get the point what I told until now (in several replies): Union = united = solidarity. Solidarity includes to share in good times and to get help in bad times. It does not mean to grab what you can get and to deny to give if you have overspill. Union also includes common rules for a variety of stuff sold on a single European market in economic sense and common European Law in political sense. Cancelling membership in a Union will (and should!) have con- sequences - you cannot just pitch on those things you want to get without giving or agreeing to compromises. >>> 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 > > The royals don't set their own budget or expenses. That decision is made by politicians according to > what they feel the royals need to pay their staff and expenses. The queen has public duties. The > younger royals do also but often have their own secular employment. > > Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their expenses. Every penny. And all their > claims are logged where anyone can see: > > http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/ > > You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician claimed. > > By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians are given _unchecked_ expenses. > They get the money whether they need it or not. They don't have to justify what they spend. And > anything they don't spend they keep, topping up an already large salary. I (partially) agree with transparency regarding all income of our politicians. On the other hand, we created bureaucracy if we demand to claim each cent politicians spent and to monitor if we shall grant payment or if we deny to pay, because a sum was unnecessarily spent. I plead for a reasonable wage in the range of an average salary in the cuntry where the politician lives (probably Belgium or France). About the snipped part: It makes a mountain out of a molehill (I posted the real numbers in comparison to your royals in my previous reply). Moreover, it seems the "Brexit" is discussed quite one-sided in GB, so I doubt British people will come to a well-considered decision because there is so much emotional overload fueled by your media. >>>> 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? > > Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule. Perhaps an oligarchy. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy You still didn't answer my original question. Telling "No one asked the people for 40 years" *means* "No one was allowed to vote for 40 years", *because* people in GB delegate their own voice to vote to politicians who then make decisions for you. >> 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: > > In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what they will do if they win an > election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both before and after they get power. > People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the politicians. > > Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too long. Politicians should not have > such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time! So when politicians of one party do not what you expected 'em to do, you have the choice to vote for the other party or, if no existing party meeted your expectations, you still had the right to found your own party? If so - why do you complain about a living democracy? >> 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 system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case for minorities. That has > happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up supporting the minority. Isn't that the point behind pondering pro's and con's between competing interests to guarantee safety for minorities? >>>> 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). > > No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on something we could do. We wouldn't > need someone else to tell us that we must. > > If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science research or air quality > improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives - they can still do so. We > don't need to be in the same club to cooperate. That's besides the point - we don't talk about you and me and a few other friends or relatives, we talk about *500 million* (516 million after Brexit and Turkey's membership as replace- ment) people living in Europe. >>> 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. > > Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be part of. Sad, but okay. >> 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. > > Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and cooperating. But that's not the > plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or working together. > > The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that the EU will put up barriers > to Brits if they leave the club. See above - you cannot take without giving something back. If a Union only is good to give, then it is better to get rid of those who just want to take. >> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the >> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade... > > The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the centre is, I believe, not > sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it needs fundamental democratic > reform. No one in the EU Parliament is "unelected": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament I do not know how this is handled in GB, but I have voted for the EU Parliament as long as it exists. If you're not allowed to vote for the EU Parliamant directly, something is wrong in your country. >> 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. > > That is what the EU does. It tries to force 500 million people to do what it thinks is right. And it > gets away with it because it never has to put itself up for election. > > I don't know whether the UK will vote to stay in the EU or leave it. But people in Sweden and > elsewhere have said that if the UK leaves then they want their own referenda so that they have a > chance to get out too. > > People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a supranational union which has been > granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of its existence so that its > leaders know they are accountable to the people. As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments, because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of foam. I think, British people have a major problem with their politicians (as do most European countries at the moment). In general, it is a problem of the accelerated redistribution of wealth, making poor people poorer faster and faster (which is a worldwide phenomenon). As long as politicians praise growth as holy cow, this will not change, but lead to civil wars. If we do not react now, it will be too late for a change. Separation (or other unilateral activities) cannot solve this problem - it only relocates markets from one spot to another. Europe cannot survive current and future challenges, if we do not stick together, and those who separate themselves will be the first who drown. >>>>> 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. > > I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was the goal. Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from 1993 until now), so where's the problem? >> 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 > > I don't think people want to be nationalistic. If the EU satisfied their needs they would probably > welcome it. But its disastrous policies have caused very high unemployment in Greece and Spain, for > example, and people who cannot get work naturally become dissatisfied with the system which caused it. The EU as such is not responsible for national tax reliefs in its member countries. Which, by the way, was not just Greece, Spain or other poorer countries, but rich like Germany and GB as well. There is almost no country on this planet which does not suffer from cheating international companies. >> and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get >> oppression and poverty in the long run. > > The EU is helping to cause poverty now! Definitely no. It still are the member states who are respon- sible for their national budgets on their own. The money sent to the EU is a minor portion of the entire budget (even in my country which sends the largest sum to Bruxelles). >> I don't know why folks >> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts >> of a few superrich, > > Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big corporates, the bigger fishing > businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds when pushed but it is really > designed to maintain protections on vested interests. One more "no" - the member states flatter big business to get jobs for their unemployed. Most taxes are collected from poor workers and white collar employees, the least taxes are dona- ted by international companies (whenever they are in the mood to "do somethinmg good"). >> 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... > > Not a good thing to talk about! I'm writing from the shoulder... ;) >> 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. > > I don't claim my opinions as anything other than opinions. That's why I put my name at the bottom of > a page - to indicate that it is just my comment. > > I would rather appeal to logic and reason than to cite a supposed authority. > > I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs etc. taken from reputable > sources, and provided links to the originals. It's not about "authorities", but, as I have shown, you often build a logic building on bogus (assumed?) facts. With proper citation of sources, erroneous assumptions could be avoided. >> 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 > > Well, I read them. That's why I have been away for so long. ;-) > > I am not sure I understood them all but I can see you have put a lot of work and thought into them. Well, it's still in progress, and I write some paragraphs per decade or so. It's mainly about deception and how easy people can be controlled with simple psychological tricks. Ads are a good example how people are incited to buy things they do not need. Separating people into classes and factions was another field where psychological tricks bypass our consciuos logical thinking - that's what is happening with Brexits, Grexits and [whichever?-xits] at the moment: Humans are stirred up to act against their true interests... Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 14:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ngkqnb$tma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9482 |
On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: >> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>> James Harris schrieb: ... > All of them want to pocket all benefits coming along with the > (otherwise attacked) EU regulation, but deny to share a small > piece of their wealth with poor(er) countries. In my opinion, > Brexit is the same thing wrapped in cloth of different colour > with slightly different muster. > > Sorry, but that's my *personal* point of view (which probably > is not very objective)... No worries. In response, *my* personal view is that I would not mind funds going to help poorer countries but I don't want them spent on the salaries and expenses of politicians and bureaucrats. I gather Norway, which is outside the EU, makes contributions to help poorer countries but does not pay into the general EU budget. That sounds fine to me. Note, a country does not need to be in the EU in order to participate in good schemes that help others. ... >> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller >> suppliers. > > > Have a look at the *real* world market: Smaller suppliers are > swallowed by large ones who are swallowed by huge ones and so > on. Yes, that's not good. ... >> Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of >> that are people who want to >> scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU >> countries will want to impose >> tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have! > > > How do you think a break out works and why should the EU keep > their borders to any non-EU country open? If GB does not want > to belong to a united Europe, why should we want to keep open > borders to GB or dispense with collecting duty or taxes? Many reasons: * Trade is not a reward for good behaviour. Trade is what provides the economy to make other schemes possible. * Countries around the world trade with each other. They don't have to pay into a political superstate in order to do so. * The UK is a net buyer of EU goods. If the EU was really malicious enough to cut trading ties then the remaining EU countries would suffer. * Other European countries are in EFTA and have no EU tariffs. Why should the UK be the only European country other than Belarus and Russia which does not trade freely with the rest of the EU? * The UK could trade with the Commonwealth - which it should never have turned its back on but had to in order to join the EEC. * Outside the EU the UK could - and I hope will - build good relationships with Africa, especially in products where the EU external tariffs are high. An independent UK could help boost the economies of poor African countries so that they can develop via their own means, rather than relying on handouts. Did you hear that the EU had imposed a high tariff on Kenya's flower exports due to an administrative failure in Kenya? When farmers in Afghanistan grow plants to make drugs, wouldn't it be better to encourage the growth of flowers in Africa? > With > Brexit, GB is just another trading partner like China, Russia > or the USA. No. Free trade within Europe is there already. In fact, AIUI there is EU free trade with countries further afield such as Mexico. Free trade and open trade no longer require proximity. That is an idea which is out of date. Average world tariffs have dropped dramatically. The EU's external protectionist barriers, by contrast, make what we buy from outside more expensive, and help protect vested interests behind the EU wall. ... >> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain >> wanting to isolate itself. That >> is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious >> means. We still want to be >> thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and >> travel in neighbouring >> countries etc. >> >> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at >> >> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU >> > > > I guess you still did not get the point what I told until now > (in several replies): Union = united = solidarity. I get it. What I am saying to you and you are apparently not getting is that unity and solidarity do not depend on the EU. Nor do they depend on "solidarity" being imposed on people by a superior authority. > Solidarity > includes to share in good times and to get help in bad times. Fine. Happy to do that. Isn't the IMF one organisation that we all pay into and from which countries can borrow when needed? Similar organisations can be used or set up where more are needed. There could be a climate fund, a healthcare fund, an education fund etc. > It does not mean to grab what you can get and to deny to give > if you have overspill. No one I know of is suggesting that. > Union also includes common rules for a > variety of stuff sold on a single European market in economic > sense and common European Law in political sense. You can have trade rules, just as you can have all the other things I mentioned above, without having to be in a political union. European countries which want to merge into one should probably just get on with it and do so. Having a single currency between multiple states is just hurting the poorer states. However, before merging into a single state, be sure that you have thought through all the consequences and that it is what you and a significant majority really want to do. > Cancelling membership in a Union will (and should!) have con- > sequences - you cannot just pitch on those things you want to > get without giving or agreeing to compromises. Why? Why would you force countries and peoples to buy in to the entire package when they don't want all of it? Some of our neighbours seem to say: "unless you do everything we do we won't let you play in our garden"! That seems to me immature. Surely mature people would say: "what are the areas in which we can work together? Let's see what we can all do to benefit the people for whom we are responsible?" In other words, why not let people choose the parts they want to join? If each part has its own associated costs then no nation will gain an a priori advantage from being part of or not being part of any one scheme. But they will be _free_ to make their own decisions over what is best for their own people. They will also be free to join or withdraw from each scheme as their own needs change over time (subject to a notification period, of course). That is surely the more adult and more sensible approach. ... >> Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their >> expenses. Every penny. And all their >> claims are logged where anyone can see: >> >> http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/ >> >> You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician >> claimed. >> >> By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians >> are given _unchecked_ expenses. >> They get the money whether they need it or not. They don't have to >> justify what they spend. And >> anything they don't spend they keep, topping up an already large salary. > > > I (partially) agree with transparency regarding all income of > our politicians. On the other hand, we created bureaucracy if > we demand to claim each cent politicians spent and to monitor > if we shall grant payment or if we deny to pay, because a sum > was unnecessarily spent. I plead for a reasonable wage in the > range of an average salary in the cuntry where the politician > lives (probably Belgium or France). Cool. > About the snipped part: It makes a mountain out of a molehill > (I posted the real numbers in comparison to your royals in my > previous reply). Moreover, it seems the "Brexit" is discussed > quite one-sided in GB, so I doubt British people will come to > a well-considered decision because there is so much emotional > overload fueled by your media. The UK's net membership fee to the EU is high. It would have allowed the UK to pay into some Europe-wide schemes and still wipe out a lot of the austerity measures that poorer people in the UK have had to face over the last few years. So the EU 'tax' has a deleterious effect on the poorest in our societies. It is not just the amount, though. IMO the money paid to Eurocrats in salaries and expenses has a bad effect on them. Giving them far too much money makes them insensitive to the needs of real people. However well intentioned, it separates them from the lives of those who pay their salaries and their expenses. They live in luxury and hob-nob with similarly-paid people from big banks, big businesses, and big organisations. They all become focussed on their own overpaid world and detached from reality. As a consequence they govern badly. >>>>> 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? >> >> Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule. >> Perhaps an oligarchy. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy > > > You still didn't answer my original question. About a dictatorship? No, I would say an oligarchy. But I answered that.... If not that then what was your original question? > Telling "No one > asked the people for 40 years" *means* "No one was allowed to > vote for 40 years", *because* people in GB delegate their own > voice to vote to politicians who then make decisions for you. We delegate to politicians two things: 1. The right to make executive decisions on our behalf - i.e. to respond to the unexpected emergencies that happen over the period of their office. 2. The authority to implement their manifesto promises. We do not give then the authority to remove powers from us, the people, or do implement major policies that they have not asked us about. Stuff like that should be done in a referendum. Also, AFAIK, for over 40 years no UK party has had an accountable manifesto promise about the EU. We have therefore not been able to vote on EU membership - even as just one point in a manifesto - for all that time. Since the EU has acquired more and more powers in the intervening period we have lost some of our democratic rights and the supremacy of the people. Nor, AIUI, have many of the people over whom the EU rules been asked for their view. Why don't countries put EU membership to their populations every few years? They should. The people of this continent must be the ones who are in charge, never the politicians. I will get back to the rest of your post. It was quite long! -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhqbkh$jto$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9505 |
James Harris wrote: > On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>>> James Harris schrieb: > >> All of them want to pocket all benefits coming along with the >> (otherwise attacked) EU regulation, but deny to share a small >> piece of their wealth with poor(er) countries. In my opinion, >> Brexit is the same thing wrapped in cloth of different colour >> with slightly different muster. >> >> Sorry, but that's my *personal* point of view (which probably >> is not very objective)... > > No worries. In response, *my* personal view is that I would not mind funds going to help poorer > countries but I don't want them spent on the salaries and expenses of politicians and bureaucrats. > > I gather Norway, which is outside the EU, makes contributions to help poorer countries but does not > pay into the general EU budget. That sounds fine to me. > > Note, a country does not need to be in the EU in order to participate in good schemes that help others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations As you can see, Norway is member of the EFTA and the EEA. These memberships force Norway to obey a bunch of EU laws (concerning traded goods and other regulations), but *deprives* Norway from the right to raise its voice pro or contra EU laws, or vote for or against whatever concerns the EU. Thus, they reached a point where they are equal to a EU member but cannot influence EU law and regulations. Is that really better than a full membership? BTW: Compared to the city of London, Norway has just a few more than *one half* of its residents spread over a 206 times larger area. The entire UK's area is only 3/4 of Norway's area, but is populated with 12.6 times more people than Norway. Do you think both are comparable? >>> Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of >>> that are people who want to >>> scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU >>> countries will want to impose >>> tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have! >> >> How do you think a break out works and why should the EU keep >> their borders to any non-EU country open? If GB does not want >> to belong to a united Europe, why should we want to keep open >> borders to GB or dispense with collecting duty or taxes? > > Many reasons: > > * Trade is not a reward for good behaviour. Trade is what provides the economy to make other schemes > possible. > > * Countries around the world trade with each other. They don't have to pay into a political > superstate in order to do so. The current situation on the world market is the result of this kind of thinking: Making money regardless of any consequences - market radicalism (the latest development of neo-liberalism) at its best. > * The UK is a net buyer of EU goods. If the EU was really malicious enough to cut trading ties then > the remaining EU countries would suffer. Not necessarily. Lower quantities are compensated by higher in- come for the importing states (due to taxes they had not levied with open borders). This just lowers profits for a few players, the overwhelming majority did benefit from taxes (socialisation versus privatisation). > * Other European countries are in EFTA and have no EU tariffs. Why should the UK be the only > European country other than Belarus and Russia which does not trade freely with the rest of the EU? Most European countries either are members of EFTA or EEA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association They have to obey EU regulations & laws regarding traded goods, so they (de facto) are EU members without the right to vote: https://next.ft.com/content/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 > * The UK could trade with the Commonwealth - which it should never have turned its back on but had > to in order to join the EEC. > > * Outside the EU the UK could - and I hope will - build good relationships with Africa, especially > in products where the EU external tariffs are high. An independent UK could help boost the economies > of poor African countries so that they can develop via their own means, rather than relying on > handouts. Did you hear that the EU had imposed a high tariff on Kenya's flower exports due to an > administrative failure in Kenya? When farmers in Afghanistan grow plants to make drugs, wouldn't it > be better to encourage the growth of flowers in Africa? Africa was a nice idea, but this market is ruled by China for a couple of decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2%80%93China_economic_relations China does not abuse poor African countries to get rid of waste and organic remains of chicken farms - they give real values in exchange for ressources. Because the UK abused Africa as almost unlimited source for slaves, most African states still remember this (less glorious) history and its later manifestation called "Apartheid". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid >> With Brexit, GB is just another trading partner like China, Russia >> or the USA. > > No. Free trade within Europe is there already. In fact, AIUI there is EU free trade with countries > further afield such as Mexico. > > Free trade and open trade no longer require proximity. That is an idea which is out of date. Average > world tariffs have dropped dramatically. The EU's external protectionist barriers, by contrast, make > what we buy from outside more expensive, and help protect vested interests behind the EU wall. So it was wrong to protect smaller companies to be swallowed by Big Players or protect people from genetically manipulated food or forbid wares not compatible to basic safety standards? There are major inconsistencies in your thoughts... >>> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain >>> wanting to isolate itself. That >>> is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious >>> means. We still want to be >>> thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and >>> travel in neighbouring >>> countries etc. >>> >>> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at >>> >>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU >> >> I guess you still did not get the point what I told until now >> (in several replies): Union = united = solidarity. > > I get it. What I am saying to you and you are apparently not getting is that unity and solidarity do > not depend on the EU. Nor do they depend on "solidarity" being imposed on people by a superior > authority. So your problem is a superior authority? Well - it also applies to the UK government, the local government of your hometown, as well as to the permanent presence of police and armed forces as well as to the existence of courts and judges - all of them are "superior" to a single citicen and all of them *force* citicens to obey existing laws. What is valid for markets must be valid for people, as well, so we should not only claim unrestricted markets, but unrestricted people. Away with laws and regulations: Clear the world for the rule of the strongest and most unethical! >> Solidarity >> includes to share in good times and to get help in bad times. > > Fine. Happy to do that. Isn't the IMF one organisation that we all pay into and from which countries > can borrow when needed? > > Similar organisations can be used or set up where more are needed. There could be a climate fund, a > healthcare fund, an education fund etc. Or the Euro bailout fund for Greece, Spain and Ireland... >> Union also includes common rules for a >> variety of stuff sold on a single European market in economic >> sense and common European Law in political sense. > > You can have trade rules, just as you can have all the other things I mentioned above, without > having to be in a political union. > > European countries which want to merge into one should probably just get on with it and do so. > Having a single currency between multiple states is just hurting the poorer states. > > However, before merging into a single state, be sure that you have thought through all the > consequences and that it is what you and a significant majority really want to do. It is not just about you and me, it is about 500,000,000 people living in the EU. Have a look at the things we have reached and the obstacles we successfully got over throughout the passed 20 years. Now that we made it up to this point, you start to throw away common achievements and go your own way? >> Cancelling membership in a Union will (and should!) have con- >> sequences - you cannot just pitch on those things you want to >> get without giving or agreeing to compromises. > > Why? Why would you force countries and peoples to buy in to the entire package when they don't want > all of it? Please remember the whole story: http://tinyurl.com/d33uk http://www.euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/m.html http://tinyurl.com/z9ehcwt >> About the snipped part: It makes a mountain out of a molehill >> (I posted the real numbers in comparison to your royals in my >> previous reply). Moreover, it seems the "Brexit" is discussed >> quite one-sided in GB, so I doubt British people will come to >> a well-considered decision because there is so much emotional >> overload fueled by your media. > > The UK's net membership fee to the EU is high. It would have allowed the UK to pay into some > Europe-wide schemes and still wipe out a lot of the austerity measures that poorer people in the UK > have had to face over the last few years. So the EU 'tax' has a deleterious effect on the poorest in > our societies. > > It is not just the amount, though. IMO the money paid to Eurocrats in salaries and expenses has a > bad effect on them. Giving them far too much money makes them insensitive to the needs of real > people. However well intentioned, it separates them from the lives of those who pay their salaries > and their expenses. They live in luxury and hob-nob with similarly-paid people from big banks, big > businesses, and big organisations. They all become focussed on their own overpaid world and detached > from reality. As a consequence they govern badly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036802.stm If you do not like lobbying, you might want to join a NGO to be part of a rapid growing resistance? Try this one: https://diem25.org/ >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule. >>> Perhaps an oligarchy. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy >> >> You still didn't answer my original question. > > About a dictatorship? No, I would say an oligarchy. But I answered that.... If not that then what > was your original question? Your claim was "no one has asked the people for over 40 years". This cannot be true in a democracy, because you *elect* avatars (called "politicians") who then make decisions *for you*. If no politician meets your expectations, you still are free to found your own party and get elected as "other people's avatar". >> Telling "No one >> asked the people for 40 years" *means* "No one was allowed to >> vote for 40 years", *because* people in GB delegate their own >> voice to vote to politicians who then make decisions for you. > > We delegate to politicians two things: > > 1. The right to make executive decisions on our behalf - i.e. to respond to the unexpected > emergencies that happen over the period of their office. > > 2. The authority to implement their manifesto promises. > > We do not give then the authority to remove powers from us, the people, or do implement major > policies that they have not asked us about. Stuff like that should be done in a referendum. > > Also, AFAIK, for over 40 years no UK party has had an accountable manifesto promise about the EU. We > have therefore not been able to vote on EU membership - even as just one point in a manifesto - for > all that time. > > Since the EU has acquired more and more powers in the intervening period we have lost some of our > democratic rights and the supremacy of the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law This definitely is not true. What you claim is (more or less) a "direct democracy" without politicians. Some states (=> Norway, Switzerland) come *close* to it, but most democratic states are based on the principle of "avatars" and do not ask their people how current problems should be solved (like practised in one of our neighbouring states called Switzerland). > Nor, AIUI, have many of the people over whom the EU rules been asked for their view. Why don't > countries put EU membership to their populations every few years? They should. The people of this > continent must be the ones who are in charge, never the politicians. Membership in a union isn't a pair of shoes you can change when you are in the mood. Once you are a member you have to obey the rules you accepted while you became a member. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 11:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <niefve$jg8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9536 |
On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: [All OT] ... > As you can see, Norway is member of the EFTA and the EEA. These > memberships force Norway The Norwegian government chose what it wanted to join up to. > to obey a bunch of EU laws (concerning > traded goods and other regulations), but *deprives* Norway from > the right to raise its voice pro or contra EU laws, or vote for > or against whatever concerns the EU. Thus, they reached a point > where they are equal to a EU member but cannot influence EU law > and regulations. They cannot change laws to do with EU trade. They can change their own internal laws. > Is that really better than a full membership? That's up to them. I wouldn't like the Norway model but they seem to like it. Or at least they prefer it to EU membership. > BTW: Compared to the city of London, Norway has just a few more > than *one half* of its residents spread over a 206 times larger > area. The entire UK's area is only 3/4 of Norway's area, but is > populated with 12.6 times more people than Norway. Do you think > both are comparable? They are comparable in some ways and not comparable in others. I don't think that similarities or differences should rule them in or out as comparators. They have to be taken as they are. ... >> * Trade is not a reward for good behaviour. Trade is what provides the >> economy to make other schemes >> possible. >> >> * Countries around the world trade with each other. They don't have to >> pay into a political >> superstate in order to do so. > > > The current situation on the world market is the result of this > kind of thinking: Making money regardless of any consequences - > market radicalism (the latest development of neo-liberalism) at > its best. I don't agree. To my mind, democracy, open trade, cooperation and individual freedom have released the world from the tyranny of control by those who think they know better. The present world financial downturn is, IMO, more to do with governments failing to regulate the _pace_ of change. Different countries expanded too quickly then had problems caused by unwise decisions and running before they could walk. I would rather economies ran steadily as tortoises than stop and start as hares. Countries which have uncontrolled capitalism are like hares. But, on the other side, socialist countries oppress their people and wreck their economies. Both sides are extreme. Neither extreme has the right answer. Where you and I might find accord is that with uncontrolled capitalism too much wealth finds its way into the hands of smaller and smaller groups. Some get rich and stay rich. Most are relatively poor and remain so. ... >> Free trade and open trade no longer require proximity. That is an idea >> which is out of date. Average >> world tariffs have dropped dramatically. The EU's external >> protectionist barriers, by contrast, make >> what we buy from outside more expensive, and help protect vested >> interests behind the EU wall. > > > So it was wrong to protect smaller companies to be swallowed by > Big Players or protect people from genetically manipulated food > or forbid wares not compatible to basic safety standards? I didn't say that. Just the opposite. The EU favours the big businesses, the big banks and the wealthy people. Its policies oppress the poor. It may have lofty goals but it really is a terrible organisation because it thinks it knows best, and it does not. > There are major inconsistencies in your thoughts... No, ISTM the inconsistencies are between what I write and what you read! :-( -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nin5kn$qja$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9588 |
James Harris wrote: > On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > > [All OT] > >> As you can see, Norway is member of the EFTA and the EEA. These >> memberships force Norway > > The Norwegian government chose what it wanted to join up to. > >> to obey a bunch of EU laws (concerning >> traded goods and other regulations), but *deprives* Norway from >> the right to raise its voice pro or contra EU laws, or vote for >> or against whatever concerns the EU. Thus, they reached a point >> where they are equal to a EU member but cannot influence EU law >> and regulations. > > They cannot change laws to do with EU trade. They can change their own internal laws. That's what I said - signing the EFTA/EEA treaties forced them to adjust their laws to EU standards. >>> * Trade is not a reward for good behaviour. Trade is what provides the >>> economy to make other schemes >>> possible. >>> >>> * Countries around the world trade with each other. They don't have to >>> pay into a political >>> superstate in order to do so. >> >> The current situation on the world market is the result of this >> kind of thinking: Making money regardless of any consequences - >> market radicalism (the latest development of neo-liberalism) at >> its best. > > I don't agree. To my mind, democracy, open trade, cooperation and individual freedom have released > the world from the tyranny of control by those who think they know better. Well, they did - but never because they were such "honourable" people. They just replaced the tyranny of a patronizing "know- it-all attitude" with a real tyranny of those who own property and/or superflouos money not required to make a living. > The present world financial downturn is, IMO, more to do with governments failing to regulate the > _pace_ of change. Different countries expanded too quickly then had problems caused by unwise > decisions and running before they could walk. I would rather economies ran steadily as tortoises > than stop and start as hares. > > Countries which have uncontrolled capitalism are like hares. But, on the other side, socialist > countries oppress their people and wreck their economies. Both sides are extreme. Neither extreme > has the right answer. > > Where you and I might find accord is that with uncontrolled capitalism too much wealth finds its way > into the hands of smaller and smaller groups. Some get rich and stay rich. Most are relatively poor > and remain so. Calling things "socialist" or "communist" does not necessarily make them socialist or communist according to the *definition* of those terms - any existing country claiming to be socialist or communist was (or is!) a dictatureship practising state ca- pitalism. This applies to the former Soviet Union plus vassals as well as to the Asian (China, Korea, Vietnam) "Communism". The redistribution of wealth is the one (and only!) pillar ca- pitalism is based upon. Whatever you book as profit on the one side must be the loss of someone else on the other side of the equation. As can be shown, the chance to book any profit grows as a function of the wealth you have hoarded. The more you can bet, the more you will win. It also can be shown that you have no chance to make any profit, if you have to spend your entire income for a roof over your head and the food you need to keep your working power (the only "ware" you can sell) alive. Putting it all together, "controlled capitalism" as it's prac- tised in Sweden might be the best compromise we will find... >>> Free trade and open trade no longer require proximity. That is an idea >>> which is out of date. Average >>> world tariffs have dropped dramatically. The EU's external >>> protectionist barriers, by contrast, make >>> what we buy from outside more expensive, and help protect vested >>> interests behind the EU wall. >> >> So it was wrong to protect smaller companies to be swallowed by >> Big Players or protect people from genetically manipulated food >> or forbid wares not compatible to basic safety standards? > > I didn't say that. Just the opposite. The EU favours the big businesses, the big banks and the > wealthy people. Its policies oppress the poor. It may have lofty goals but it really is a terrible > organisation because it thinks it knows best, and it does not. > >> There are major inconsistencies in your thoughts... > > No, ISTM the inconsistencies are between what I write and what you read! :-( Okay. The problem is, that I did not get your real point when- ever I misunderstood something, so errors were multiplied from one posting to the next. I suggest to return to *on topic* stuff to prevent myself from further misunderstandings... ;) BTW: If I order electronic parts from China, it is less than a half of the price - including customs dues! - I had to pay for the same parts if I order them from a German shop. Contradicts your claim >>> "...EU protectionist barriers make what we buy from outside >>> more expensive..." slightly? Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ngl1mp$m0q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9482 |
On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: >> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: ... >>> 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: >> >> In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what >> they will do if they win an >> election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both >> before and after they get power. >> People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the >> politicians. >> >> Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too >> long. Politicians should not have >> such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time! > > > So when politicians of one party do not what you expected 'em > to do, you have the choice to vote for the other party or, if > no existing party meeted your expectations, you still had the > right to found your own party? > > If so - why do you complain about a living democracy? I am not sure I understand what you are asking me. Founding one's own party is not very practical! >>> 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 system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case >> for minorities. That has >> happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up >> supporting the minority. > > > Isn't that the point behind pondering pro's and con's between > competing interests to guarantee safety for minorities? Well, the safety of a nation's citizens is one of the fundamental duties of a government. It should not require debate. ... >> No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on >> something we could do. We wouldn't >> need someone else to tell us that we must. >> >> If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science >> research or air quality >> improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives - >> they can still do so. We >> don't need to be in the same club to cooperate. > > > That's besides the point - we don't talk about you and me and > a few other friends or relatives, we talk about *500 million* > (516 million after Brexit and Turkey's membership as replace- > ment) people living in Europe. By "we" I meant all European nations. We, as nations, can work together without being part of the same superstate. ... >> Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be >> part of. > > > Sad, but okay. If the UK leaves, you guys will be able to get the superstate you want without the UK continually slowing you down! ... >> Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and >> cooperating. But that's not the >> plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or >> working together. >> >> The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that >> the EU will put up barriers >> to Brits if they leave the club. > > > See above - you cannot take without giving something back. If > a Union only is good to give, then it is better to get rid of > those who just want to take. Trade and cooperation _are_ a two-way activities. Both sides give and both sides take. I don't agree with your suggestion that a country has to accept political integration in order to have free trade. AFAIK, around the world, only the EU mandates ever closer political union. All other trading blocs are about trade. The EU's political nation-building is totally unnecessary and very likely a bad idea even for the countries which want to merge into one. For example, two of the EU's biggest policies: free movement of people and a single currency are both in the process of failing when faced with their first big tests. IMO they were both naive and idealistic. >>> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the >>> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade... >> >> The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the >> centre is, I believe, not >> sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it >> needs fundamental democratic >> reform. > > > No one in the EU Parliament is "unelected": > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament > > I do not know how this is handled in GB, but I have voted for > the EU Parliament as long as it exists. If you're not allowed > to vote for the EU Parliamant directly, something is wrong in > your country. I didn't mention the EP! I could make a case for it's lack of democratic legitimacy but there are better examples: The main power in the EU is with the Commission. The second is probably the Council of Ministers. Neither of those are elected. In fact, is is sometimes politicians who have just been rejected by the electorates who go on to get cushy jobs in Brussels. They are chosen by their peers, not by electorates. ... >> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a >> supranational union which has been >> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of >> its existence so that its >> leaders know they are accountable to the people. > > > As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments, > because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of > foam. On the contrary, I don't think you have shown anything of the sort. I have provided reasons for the points I have made. > I think, British people have a major problem with their > politicians (as do most European countries at the moment). In > general, it is a problem of the accelerated redistribution of > wealth, making poor people poorer faster and faster (which is > a worldwide phenomenon). As long as politicians praise growth > as holy cow, this will not change, but lead to civil wars. If > we do not react now, it will be too late for a change. > > Separation (or other unilateral activities) cannot solve this > problem - it only relocates markets from one spot to another. > Europe cannot survive current and future challenges, if we do > not stick together, and those who separate themselves will be > the first who drown. Brits still want to stick with and work together with European neighbours. From what _you_ have said, it would be the European neighbours who want to stop cooperating and trading if we leave the EU, in some sort of punishment. If countries really do think that way then they seem immature. I don't believe anyone would really stop cooperating and trading. It is in no one's interests to do so. The toys may be ejected from the pram in a great bluster. But after a while reality will set in. >>>>>> 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. >> >> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was >> the goal. > > > Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from > 1993 until now), so where's the problem? I'm afraid you have lost me a bit. I don't see a problem so I cannot explain where it is! My point remains that trade and cooperation should not be a "price" for yielding democracy. Trade and cooperation are the natural consequences of life, and go on all round the world. The EU's one-size-fits-all approach is unwise. I would anticipate that New Zealand trades and cooperates with Australia. Are you saying that the New Zealanders should not do so unless they agree to amalgamate with Australia, to become one country? Such an idea is absurd. New Zealand is its own state, and there is nothing wrong with them being happy as a separate country. And being separate does not prevent them engaging with their larger neighbour. Nor is there any reason for the UK to feel it has to be part of a European superstate. ... >> The EU is helping to cause poverty now! > > > Definitely no. It still are the member states who are respon- > sible for their national budgets on their own. The money sent > to the EU is a minor portion of the entire budget (even in my > country which sends the largest sum to Bruxelles). Since 2013 have you not heard reports that Greeks and their children do not have enough to eat? This is modern Europe, not the third world! http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/greece-food-crisis-summer-austerity Look at the unemployment rates in Croatia, Spain and Greece: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2016.png Compare the rates with those of countries outside the EU, and especially note the effect of the flagship policy of the euro on unemployment: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/6/69/Unemployment_rates_EU-28_EA-19_US_and_Japan_seasonally_adjusted_January_2000_March_2016.png >>> I don't know why folks >>> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts >>> of a few superrich, >> >> Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big >> corporates, the bigger fishing >> businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds >> when pushed but it is really >> designed to maintain protections on vested interests. > > > One more "no" - the member states flatter big business to get > jobs for their unemployed. I would say they focus on big businesses in order to promote jobs. That sounds like a good goal. But it means that the big businesses get advantages over smaller competitors who cannot provide so many jobs. So the big businesses win. The competitors lose out. Overall competition drops. Consumers have to pay more. And the big business becomes relatively complacent, thereby reducing growth and reducing the number of jobs available. Every populated continent is growing apart from Europe. High EU regulation levels are proportionally less costly for big businesses to deal with. Big businesses have lobbying access and therefore influence in the EU institutions. Again, that helps them persuade the EU decision makers to do what's best for the big businesses but not what is best for us. > Most taxes are collected from poor > workers and white collar employees, the least taxes are dona- > ted by international companies (whenever they are in the mood > to "do somethinmg good"). Fair taxation is a very big issue. I could make some comments but that will take us off at a tangent. ... >> I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs >> etc. taken from reputable >> sources, and provided links to the originals. > > > It's not about "authorities", but, as I have shown, you often > build a logic building on bogus (assumed?) facts. I have to say that AFAICS you have not shown any such thing. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhqbkl$jto$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9506 |
James Harris wrote: > On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>>> >>>> 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: >>> >>> In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what >>> they will do if they win an >>> election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both >>> before and after they get power. >>> People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the >>> politicians. >>> >>> Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too >>> long. Politicians should not have >>> such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time! >> >> So when politicians of one party do not what you expected 'em >> to do, you have the choice to vote for the other party or, if >> no existing party meeted your expectations, you still had the >> right to found your own party? >> >> If so - why do you complain about a living democracy? > > I am not sure I understand what you are asking me. You complained about missing democracy in GB and the EU - before doing that, you should take a chance on voting for another party representing your political view better than the one who did not act the way you expected from them. And, If no party represented your political view, you *still* were free to found one speaking out the things you want. > Founding one's own party is not very practical! Why not? That's living democracy - get active and do something! >>>> 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 system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case >>> for minorities. That has >>> happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up >>> supporting the minority. >> >> Isn't that the point behind pondering pro's and con's between >> competing interests to guarantee safety for minorities? > > Well, the safety of a nation's citizens is one of the fundamental duties of a government. It should > not require debate. So all existing laws existed from the very beginning of the Uni- verse until now without the need to ever be enacted? Safety is a fundamental Human Right - we have to fight to keep it! >>> No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on >>> something we could do. We wouldn't >>> need someone else to tell us that we must. >>> >>> If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science >>> research or air quality >>> improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives - >>> they can still do so. We >>> don't need to be in the same club to cooperate. >> >> That's besides the point - we don't talk about you and me and >> a few other friends or relatives, we talk about *500 million* >> (516 million after Brexit and Turkey's membership as replace- >> ment) people living in Europe. > > By "we" I meant all European nations. We, as nations, can work together without being part of the > same superstate. Well, we could step back and start with the political rag rug we had in the 10th century. Probably we could come to a "new" EU in 3020, 4020, 5020, ... >>> Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be >>> part of. >> >> Sad, but okay. > > If the UK leaves, you guys will be able to get the superstate you want without the UK continually > slowing you down! "If" the latest surveys match reality, you represent a minority. Are you willing to accept the decision of the British majority? >>> Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and >>> cooperating. But that's not the >>> plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or >>> working together. >>> >>> The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that >>> the EU will put up barriers >>> to Brits if they leave the club. >> >> See above - you cannot take without giving something back. If >> a Union only is good to give, then it is better to get rid of >> those who just want to take. > > Trade and cooperation _are_ a two-way activities. Both sides give and both sides take. I don't agree > with your suggestion that a country has to accept political integration in order to have free trade. > AFAIK, around the world, only the EU mandates ever closer political union. All other trading blocs > are about trade. > > The EU's political nation-building is totally unnecessary and very likely a bad idea even for the > countries which want to merge into one. > > For example, two of the EU's biggest policies: free movement of people and a single currency are > both in the process of failing when faced with their first big tests. IMO they were both naive and > idealistic. The USA could have decided not to bind their states to a politi- cal union, but to create fifty separate states in a "loose trade union" with 50 governments and 50 currencies. They didn't do it, because they knew they would get multiple times stronger if they unite to one political union. Building the EU is a difficult process, but we're "half through" with it. Comparing EU against German laws tells me that I as one of 500 million people will benefit from EU law, because it takes the best of all existing local laws to stay balanced. Whoever complains about EU laws belongs to those who were forced to adhere to minimum standards for safety and health or offended by the fact that consumer rights have a higher value than making profit at the cost of others. The Euro still exists as currency and still is *stable* compared to other currencies. How could it be naive to introduce a common currency for a political union of states? It is the opposite: It makes things easier and saves money for those who are members of this currency union. >>>> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the >>>> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade... >>> >>> The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the >>> centre is, I believe, not >>> sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it >>> needs fundamental democratic >>> reform. >> >> No one in the EU Parliament is "unelected": >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament >> >> I do not know how this is handled in GB, but I have voted for >> the EU Parliament as long as it exists. If you're not allowed >> to vote for the EU Parliamant directly, something is wrong in >> your country. > > I didn't mention the EP! I could make a case for it's lack of democratic legitimacy but there are > better examples: > > The main power in the EU is with the Commission. The second is probably the Council of Ministers. > Neither of those are elected. > > In fact, is is sometimes politicians who have just been rejected by the electorates who go on to get > cushy jobs in Brussels. They are chosen by their peers, not by electorates. If these were not elected, they were not in command (unless they took their might by force, e.g. a coup). Any other way to get an appointment *has to be* democratic, because 28 member states had to agree to their nomination. >>> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a >>> supranational union which has been >>> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of >>> its existence so that its >>> leaders know they are accountable to the people. >> >> As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments, >> because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of >> foam. > > On the contrary, I don't think you have shown anything of the sort. I have provided reasons for the > points I have made. Well, I provided several links to facts which exceeded our frame if I started to "C&P" quotes from them. I assumed you read these linked documents to share the knowledge my answers are based on. I am aware that I am no native speaker, so I expect you ask if I screwed something up. >> I think, British people have a major problem with their >> politicians (as do most European countries at the moment). In >> general, it is a problem of the accelerated redistribution of >> wealth, making poor people poorer faster and faster (which is >> a worldwide phenomenon). As long as politicians praise growth >> as holy cow, this will not change, but lead to civil wars. If >> we do not react now, it will be too late for a change. >> >> Separation (or other unilateral activities) cannot solve this >> problem - it only relocates markets from one spot to another. >> Europe cannot survive current and future challenges, if we do >> not stick together, and those who separate themselves will be >> the first who drown. > > Brits still want to stick with and work together with European neighbours. So you want to "Brexit" just for fun and rejoin when you stopped laughing? > From what _you_ have said, it would be the European neighbours who want > to stop cooperating and trading if we leave the EU, in some sort of > punishment. If countries really do think that way then they seem immature. We want to "exit", so the others are responsible if they take it serious (and are "immature" if they have the nerve to complain)? > I don't believe anyone would really stop cooperating and trading. It is in no one's interests to do > so. The toys may be ejected from the pram in a great bluster. But after a while reality will set in. Let's see: GB wants to leave the EU. This is a unilateral viola- tion of an international treaty between GB and the member states of the EU. How did British people react if the EU announced: "We will throw GB out of the EU, because we are afraid Britain could take control over the entire European continent..."? >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was >>> the goal. >> >> Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from >> 1993 until now), so where's the problem? > > I'm afraid you have lost me a bit. I don't see a problem so I cannot explain where it is! Just read what who replied to what to get the picture. All rele- vant information can be taken from the lines above. You mismatch the existing EU with its predecessor EEC. While the latter was a pure economic treaty, the EU always was thought to once form the United States of Europe. > My point remains that trade and cooperation should not be a "price" for yielding democracy. Trade > and cooperation are the natural consequences of life, and go on all round the world. The EU's > one-size-fits-all approach is unwise. > > I would anticipate that New Zealand trades and cooperates with Australia. Are you saying that the > New Zealanders should not do so unless they agree to amalgamate with Australia, to become one country? > > Such an idea is absurd. New Zealand is its own state, and there is nothing wrong with them being > happy as a separate country. And being separate does not prevent them engaging with their larger > neighbour. > > Nor is there any reason for the UK to feel it has to be part of a European superstate. As there's no need to reduce everything to the question how much money it will throw if we sell it - the "money makers" destroyed this planet to an extent, so the question should be: "How can we survive the *results* of a market which was allowed to waste our resources, pollute our air and water and still wants to continue this pointless war against Nature?" If you reduce inter-state relationships to economy and trade, it makes me wonder why the UK ever became a member of the EU... >>> The EU is helping to cause poverty now! >> >> Definitely no. It still are the member states who are respon- >> sible for their national budgets on their own. The money sent >> to the EU is a minor portion of the entire budget (even in my >> country which sends the largest sum to Bruxelles). > > Since 2013 have you not heard reports that Greeks and their children do not have enough to eat? This > is modern Europe, not the third world! > > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/greece-food-crisis-summer-austerity > > Look at the unemployment rates in Croatia, Spain and Greece: > > http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2016.png > > Compare the rates with those of countries outside the EU, and especially note the effect of the > flagship policy of the euro on unemployment: > > http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/6/69/Unemployment_rates_EU-28_EA-19_US_and_Japan_seasonally_adjusted_January_2000_March_2016.png Where is the correlation between Greek's national budget and the share they have to pay to the EU (a negative sum, that is: Greek *gets* money from the EU!)? Greece did not become bancrupt because it is a EU member, it was their policy not to demand taxes from their superrich residents! And this policy was reminded by the EU over and over, again, but the EU had no way to force Greece to encash missing taxes 'cause Greece still is an independent EU member state... >>>> I don't know why folks >>>> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts >>>> of a few superrich, >>> >>> Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big >>> corporates, the bigger fishing >>> businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds >>> when pushed but it is really >>> designed to maintain protections on vested interests. >> >> One more "no" - the member states flatter big business to get >> jobs for their unemployed. > > I would say they focus on big businesses in order to promote jobs. That sounds like a good goal. But > it means that the big businesses get advantages over smaller competitors who cannot provide so many > jobs. So the big businesses win. The competitors lose out. Overall competition drops. Consumers have > to pay more. And the big business becomes relatively complacent, thereby reducing growth and > reducing the number of jobs available. Every populated continent is growing apart from Europe. > > High EU regulation levels are proportionally less costly for big businesses to deal with. > > Big businesses have lobbying access and therefore influence in the EU institutions. Again, that > helps them persuade the EU decision makers to do what's best for the big businesses but not what is > best for us. Everything you told above applies to any country on our planet - there is no country which is one hundred percent free of lobbies of any kind or corruption scandals. >>> I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs >>> etc. taken from reputable >>> sources, and provided links to the originals. >> >> It's not about "authorities", but, as I have shown, you often >> build a logic building on bogus (assumed?) facts. > > I have to say that AFAICS you have not shown any such thing. I have no time to analyse our entire correspondence to quote the statements my conclusion is based upon. I have something like an eidetic memory, so I have most of our conversations in mind, but cannot quote, because I store things in note form, not as entire text. What I wrote can be verified, but it took a lot of time to re-read the entire thread to collect all required qoutes. (There are *some* inconsitencies in your thoughts...) Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nieig4$re5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9537 |
[All OT] On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > James Harris wrote: > > >> On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>> James Harris wrote: >>>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: ... > "If" the latest surveys match reality, you represent a minority. > Are you willing to accept the decision of the British majority? If it is conducted in a free and fair manner, and the people of the country know what they are voting on, yes. Unfortunately, up til now there has been a lot of misrepresentation by both sides of the campaign. Both were reviewed and found wanting. For exmaple, see http://www.cityam.com/242132/a-plague-on-both-your-houses-mps-attack-eu-referendum-campaigns By far the majority of the mislead has come from the Remain camp though Brits, to their credit, according to the opinion polls do not believe what they have been told. A number of people here have been astonished that a British government should have behaved as it has. I would count myself among them. There are no true statesmen around. Ironically, even European referendum guidelines have been flouted. See the following. http://pensites.com/politics/article-1107/Has-UK-government-contravened-European-referendum-guidelines I could written more, and could say loads more still. But those few guidelines from the Council of Europe should be enough. ... >> The main power in the EU is with the Commission. The second is >> probably the Council of Ministers. >> Neither of those are elected. >> >> In fact, is is sometimes politicians who have just been rejected by >> the electorates who go on to get >> cushy jobs in Brussels. They are chosen by their peers, not by >> electorates. > > > If these were not elected, they were not in command (unless they > took their might by force, e.g. a coup). Any other way to get an > appointment *has to be* democratic, because 28 member states had > to agree to their nomination. The Commission personnel are not elected by the people of Europe. The Commission personnel are chosen by fellow politicians. >>>> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a >>>> supranational union which has been >>>> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of >>>> its existence so that its >>>> leaders know they are accountable to the people. >>> >>> As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments, >>> because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of >>> foam. >> >> On the contrary, I don't think you have shown anything of the sort. I >> have provided reasons for the >> points I have made. > > > Well, I provided several links to facts which exceeded our frame > if I started to "C&P" quotes from them. I assumed you read these > linked documents to share the knowledge my answers are based on. > I am aware that I am no native speaker, so I expect you ask if I > screwed something up. I think your English is /very/ good. ... >> Brits still want to stick with and work together with European >> neighbours. > > > So you want to "Brexit" just for fun and rejoin when you stopped > laughing? No laughs! The EU is not Europe. I don't know if you are a football fan but you have probably heard about the scandal of corruption in FIFA, the world football governing body. Succinctly, ... Voting for the EU because we like Europe would be akin to voting for FIFA because we like football. ... >>>> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was >>>> the goal. >>> >>> Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from >>> 1993 until now), so where's the problem? >> >> I'm afraid you have lost me a bit. I don't see a problem so I cannot >> explain where it is! > > > Just read what who replied to what to get the picture. All rele- > vant information can be taken from the lines above. You mismatch > the existing EU with its predecessor EEC. While the latter was a > pure economic treaty, the EU always was thought to once form the > United States of Europe. OK. Good to see someone confirm that. The Remain side in the UK keeps denying it. ... > Greece did not become bancrupt because it is a EU member, it was > their policy not to demand taxes from their superrich residents! > And this policy was reminded by the EU over and over, again, but > the EU had no way to force Greece to encash missing taxes 'cause > Greece still is an independent EU member state... It is probably more accurate to say that Greece was wrecked by being in the euro. If Britain had been in the euro it too would not have survived the 2007/8 financial crash. Ditto for Iceland and others. Yet now, Britain - while not exactly thriving - is doing well economically and is looking set to weather further financial storms well. ... >> I would say they focus on big businesses in order to promote jobs. >> That sounds like a good goal. But >> it means that the big businesses get advantages over smaller >> competitors who cannot provide so many >> jobs. So the big businesses win. The competitors lose out. Overall >> competition drops. Consumers have >> to pay more. And the big business becomes relatively complacent, >> thereby reducing growth and >> reducing the number of jobs available. Every populated continent is >> growing apart from Europe. >> >> High EU regulation levels are proportionally less costly for big >> businesses to deal with. >> >> Big businesses have lobbying access and therefore influence in the EU >> institutions. Again, that >> helps them persuade the EU decision makers to do what's best for the >> big businesses but not what is >> best for us. > > > Everything you told above applies to any country on our planet - > there is no country which is one hundred percent free of lobbies > of any kind or corruption scandals. Agreed. Though I would suggest to you that the EU makes corporate lobbying worse because of its size, its power, its instinct for bureaucracy, and its lack of accountability. The latter applying to its unchecked expenses system, to a lot of it being run by civil servants rather than elected representatives, and to it having no opposition to challenge it on behalf of the people. I love the idea of European (and global) cooperation, and there being a forum for discussion. But the EU is not that forum. It has lost its way. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nin5kc$qja$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9589 |
James Harris wrote: > [All OT] > > On 21/05/2016 20:10, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >> James Harris wrote: >>> On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote: >>>> James Harris wrote: >>>>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > >> "If" the latest surveys match reality, you represent a minority. >> Are you willing to accept the decision of the British majority? > > If it is conducted in a free and fair manner, and the people of the country know what they are > voting on, yes. > > Unfortunately, up til now there has been a lot of misrepresentation by both sides of the campaign. > Both were reviewed and found wanting. For exmaple, see > > http://www.cityam.com/242132/a-plague-on-both-your-houses-mps-attack-eu-referendum-campaigns > > By far the majority of the mislead has come from the Remain camp though Brits, to their credit, > according to the opinion polls do not believe what they have been told. > > A number of people here have been astonished that a British government should have behaved as it > has. I would count myself among them. There are no true statesmen around. > > Ironically, even European referendum guidelines have been flouted. See the following. > > http://pensites.com/politics/article-1107/Has-UK-government-contravened-European-referendum-guidelines > > I could written more, and could say loads more still. But those few guidelines from the Council of > Europe should be enough. As I told in a previuos reply, I have the impression that this debate is based on assumptions and gut instinct rather than on reason, well-thought-out argumentation or facts on both sides. >>> The main power in the EU is with the Commission. The second is >>> probably the Council of Ministers. >>> Neither of those are elected. >>> >>> In fact, is is sometimes politicians who have just been rejected by >>> the electorates who go on to get >>> cushy jobs in Brussels. They are chosen by their peers, not by >>> electorates. >> >> If these were not elected, they were not in command (unless they >> took their might by force, e.g. a coup). Any other way to get an >> appointment *has to be* democratic, because 28 member states had >> to agree to their nomination. > > The Commission personnel are not elected by the people of Europe. The Commission personnel are > chosen by fellow politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission The commission members are sent by the national parliaments of all EU member states. BTW: No European country grants people the right to select the ministers or members of their administration *directly* - they only have the choice between political parties who then select their ministers internally. Why should the EU commission be an exception from this practise? >>>>> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a >>>>> supranational union which has been >>>>> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of >>>>> its existence so that its >>>>> leaders know they are accountable to the people. >>>> >>>> As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments, >>>> because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of >>>> foam. >>> >>> On the contrary, I don't think you have shown anything of the sort. I >>> have provided reasons for the >>> points I have made. >> >> Well, I provided several links to facts which exceeded our frame >> if I started to "C&P" quotes from them. I assumed you read these >> linked documents to share the knowledge my answers are based on. >> I am aware that I am no native speaker, so I expect you ask if I >> screwed something up. > > I think your English is /very/ good. It was good if I could express myself the same way I can write the stuff I think in German. As long as it took that much time to enunciate less than 10 percent I really wanted to say, I've still have to learn a lot... >>> Brits still want to stick with and work together with European >>> neighbours. >> >> So you want to "Brexit" just for fun and rejoin when you stopped >> laughing? > > No laughs! The EU is not Europe. > > I don't know if you are a football fan but you have probably heard about the scandal of corruption > in FIFA, the world football governing body. > > Succinctly, ... Voting for the EU because we like Europe would be akin to voting for FIFA because we > like football. As told before - the EU is the minimum compromise their single member states could agree to. I abhor any kind of commercialised sports and I prefer to ride a car, truck or scooter over riding a (motor) bike or, beware, walk or run. ;) >>>>> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was >>>>> the goal. >>>> >>>> Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from >>>> 1993 until now), so where's the problem? >>> >>> I'm afraid you have lost me a bit. I don't see a problem so I cannot >>> explain where it is! >> >> Just read what who replied to what to get the picture. All rele- >> vant information can be taken from the lines above. You mismatch >> the existing EU with its predecessor EEC. While the latter was a >> pure economic treaty, the EU always was thought to once form the >> United States of Europe. > > OK. Good to see someone confirm that. The Remain side in the UK keeps denying it. Why? The idea of an united Europe is so much older than dreams about unlimited world-wide trade. >> Greece did not become bancrupt because it is a EU member, it was >> their policy not to demand taxes from their superrich residents! >> And this policy was reminded by the EU over and over, again, but >> the EU had no way to force Greece to encash missing taxes 'cause >> Greece still is an independent EU member state... > > It is probably more accurate to say that Greece was wrecked by being in the euro. If Britain had > been in the euro it too would not have survived the 2007/8 financial crash. Ditto for Iceland and > others. Yet now, Britain - while not exactly thriving - is doing well economically and is looking > set to weather further financial storms well. Do you mean this Iceland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_financial_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Iceland_to_the_European_Union It never had Euro as currency and broke down because investors in the Netherlands and the UK reclaimed their funds. Their 1st negotiations to join the EU were offered after the crisis, but a *later* government decided to stop negotiations and withdraw Icelands proposal. >>> I would say they focus on big businesses in order to promote jobs. >>> That sounds like a good goal. But >>> it means that the big businesses get advantages over smaller >>> competitors who cannot provide so many >>> jobs. So the big businesses win. The competitors lose out. Overall >>> competition drops. Consumers have >>> to pay more. And the big business becomes relatively complacent, >>> thereby reducing growth and >>> reducing the number of jobs available. Every populated continent is >>> growing apart from Europe. >>> >>> High EU regulation levels are proportionally less costly for big >>> businesses to deal with. >>> >>> Big businesses have lobbying access and therefore influence in the EU >>> institutions. Again, that >>> helps them persuade the EU decision makers to do what's best for the >>> big businesses but not what is >>> best for us. >> >> Everything you told above applies to any country on our planet - >> there is no country which is one hundred percent free of lobbies >> of any kind or corruption scandals. > > Agreed. Though I would suggest to you that the EU makes corporate lobbying worse because of its > size, its power, its instinct for bureaucracy, and its lack of accountability. The latter applying > to its unchecked expenses system, to a lot of it being run by civil servants rather than elected > representatives, and to it having no opposition to challenge it on behalf of the people. > > I love the idea of European (and global) cooperation, and there being a forum for discussion. But > the EU is not that forum. It has lost its way. If so, you only can change it from inside - as "outsider" it's impossible to change anything. There surely are a lot of "bad" things which must be changed as soon as possible, but a lot of others are okay as they are and should not be changed, because they protect consumers from greed of gain and security risks. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160125182935.73d9188e@_> |
| In reply to | #9114 |
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:46:26 +0100 "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> wrote: > James Harris replied: > So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or > ruled by what Rod often see as a failure. ? Oh, yes, you do need to turn on an English spell checker. ;-) > I cannot stop laughing about windoze and Loonix and all who think > that they can write any OS better than the two bloat/big-ones by > using C, C+++ and other HLL-shit. Aw ... I'm hurt. (feigned) :-) I have nothing against assembly, having coded 6502 and 80x86, except that it's much easier and faster to code in C. My OS project is halted, but it wasn't due to C, although one problematic C compiler library did contribute to that. BTW, those to whom you're laughing at for using C, C++, would be everyone who has posted here since I started in 2006 or 2007, except you. AFAIR, you're the only person who was developing in assembly, unless we're going way back, before 2007. ;-) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web