BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 02:11 AM

Can you explain how that is different from the UK system where the UK unelected civil service drafts legislation in relation to political aims for the politicians to approve or disapprove."

Kenny B no comparison at all. In the EU it is the EU Commissioners who introduce the legislation and hand it down for the EU Parliament to discuss (Note: Discuss not approve) for the EU Parliament to do anything the decision made has got to have a two-thirds majority (Nigh on impossible in most cases - even when the entire Commission has been shown to be utterly corrupt - Remember the Delors resignations?).

Now in the UK all our political parties issue manifestos that tell us the great unwashed what they propose to do as and when they get elected to power. Provided they play fair and actually do what they say THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT assign the task of drafting the relevant Bill to the politically neutral Civil Service for introduction into Parliament when that Bill is debated, or "read", three times by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, during this process changes can be made, then after it's third reading it is passed into law by majority vote when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 01:54 AM

Steve Shaw - 18 Jun 16 - 08:57 PM

It would seem that in general we are much in agreement

1: "Well, the UK has been outvoted on 58 issues in the last fourteen years but has agreed on over two and a half thousand issues. Most of those 58 issues have hardly been life-threatening. Pretty good for a club now with 28 member states."

Britain has always been popularly portrayed as always being at odds with the EU something that is a gross misrepresentation. Anti-EU feeling in the UK runs at about 49%, in countries such as Spain, France, the Netherlands and Germany that percentage is much higher. Britain has never said No to the EU or called a referendum on any EU issue France has, the Netherlands have, Denmark has, Ireland has. Didn't help any of them, their Governments just rejigged the questions until Brussels got the result they wanted. The UK's "contentment" with the EU stems from deals that were made with it by Margaret Thatcher that excludes the UK from specific things the principle one being our currency - we can never be forced into joining the Euro.

2: The basis of peregrina's statement on wars is bloody obvious. The two biggest wars of all time by a country mile were between European states, at least at their outsets, and the Common Market's forerunner was set up with the express aim of preventing such conflicts in the future.

Peregrina put the point very badly and inaccurately. The European Steel and Coal Community was set up to specifically reduce the risk of any future war between France and Germany and to "control" Steel and Coal production so that in the environment of what was known as the "Cold War" West Germany could rearm. To date the EU has not shown itself capable of deterring anything, NATO on the other hand has.

3: "you fail to inform us that Norway must comply with rules on free movement of people, the numero uno campaigning gambit of the racist "out" campaign."

The trouble with the EU is that rules are not interpreted and applied in any standard uniform manner. If you actually think that Norway complies in the same manner as the UK, France, Germany or the Netherlands then you would be very much mistaken. Anyone thinking that they can just travel to Norway and look for work would be in for one hell of a shock.

4: "As for workers' pension funds, we have one of the worst state pension provisions in Europe and we have arseholes like Philip Green sucking money out of pension funds. Nothing to do with the EU one way or the other."

Who said pensions had anything to do with the EU? I didn't. In mentioning pensions I was addressing peregrina's "profits for the rich" nonsense. I was also not referring to State Pensions, but private and company pensions that rely on companies making profit. Oh and Sir Philip Green whose actions generally are to be condemned did nothing that Labour's very own darling and financial genius Gordon Brown didn't himself do with the State Pension fund while he was Chancellor under Blair. Which could be why our State Pension Provision is so poor.

5: "As for unelected officials, you appear to be resoundingly silent about the half-dead, the unelected party lackeys and the men in frocks who infest the Lords. Last I heard, they were heavily involved in making our laws..."

26 men in frocks and 92 of the "half dead" {If you are referring to who I think you are} out of a chamber of 800 sitting members. Hardly a "heavy presence" - most as you correctly state are party lackeys like the Kinnocks who have amassed a fortune worth over £10 million from their adventures in politics, the bulk of the money coming from their careers in the European set up. And no they are not heavily involved in making our laws, they have a role to play, they can even introduce a Bill that may or may not make it onto the Statute Books but they cannot make laws only the House of Commons can do that. The House of Lords can suggest amendments to Bills but the Commons are under no obligation to accept those amendments and the Lords cannot stop any Bill from becoming Law after its third reading. That dates back to The Parliament Act of 1911 that curtailed the power of the House of Lords and was discussed at some length in the Easter Rising thread. Did you know Steve that anyone can apply to become a member of the House of Lords there is even a website for it so that you can apply on-line - their success rate is 50%. Get cracking now that you have some spare time on your hands – you could go there and reform it from the inside.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: brashley46
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 09:55 PM

Quite the political thread you folks have here. I would just like to point out, from across the pond in Toronto, that not all the YES campaigners are teh right-wing Little England types. The leadership of the RMT union is the only labour leadership campaigning for the Yes, but there are surely a large minority of good trades unionists in the other organisations who are against it as well, on the grounds that Brothers Steve Hedley and Alex Gordon keep trying to push ... the EU is not a Europe for the workers and the peoples of Europe, it is a Europe for the bankers. It is a Europe which makes it virtually impossible for workers from other countries in the EU working in the UK to be paid at the same rate as British workers; how is that immigrant-friendly?

If it were possible to reform the EU so that the people who control it were democratically elected, that would be another question. But the Troika are not elected by any of the populations of Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:03 PM

Well, peregrina, Michael is infamous in these parts not only for his unwarranted tirades of contumely directed at anyone not as right-wing as he is, but also for disappearing up his own linguistically-gnarled bottom.

Michael, the 2011 referendum was a cynical Tory ploy inflicted on (sorry: promised to) an extremely gullible bunch of LibDems. The choice in the vote did not anywhere near represent all the possible permutations of proportional representation. It was a total Tory con, and you know it. It is an informed example of absolutely nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 01:51 PM

Steve -- precisely. Thank you for that.

Mrrzy -- effect on research funding, knowledge exchange and so on of leaving EU will be deleterious.
The UK benefits greatly (and indeed disproportionately from EU funds) for research. In short: science will suffer.

If anyone knows the MGM lion well enough to send something sweet his way, it would be a good turn. I'm rather disappointed at the level of personal insult and lack of reasoned argument. One of the justifications for free speech in a democracy is the idea that good ideas should drive out bad in open discussion. MGM's insults and refusal to engage don't exemplify civil discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 01:02 PM

So account, Steve, for the 'democratic' referendum rejection only 5 years ago of the system you would obviously prefer, and tghen justify such an attitude while trying to maintain your 'democraticv' credentials. Fear you have painted yourself into a bit of a corner, my dear fellow.

peregrina - having bid you adieu, have not read your latest addressed to me; & intend to read no more. So save your metaphorical breath to cool your metaphorically lumpy porridge.

☞〠☜

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 12:53 PM

There was a bit on Science Friday about how the Br/Exit would affect science but I can't find it at their website, anybody got a better ferret?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 11:54 AM

Michael's hailing of our amazing parliamentary system needs to be set against the backdrop that the Tories obtained just over one third (37%) of votes cast, and under one quarter of eligible voters put their cross next to a Tory candidate. The vast majority did not get what they voted for. Just think how them there Tories go to town on trade unions when strike ballots attract a similar level of votes in favour versus eligibility to vote. The whole point of proportional representation is to try to do away with this, er, lack of democracy. In addition, I note that he freely indulges in the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc In trying to persuade us that proportional representation leads to weak government. Perhaps he'd care to explain the continuing success of Germany then.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 11:47 AM

Lovely. A gentleman?

Really MGM, you've illustrated precisely the concerns about civil discourse and us-against them prejudice and division that are so toxic right now.

And not a rational argument to offer: just ad hominem insults.

Maybe think for a moment about what people share, not how to divide them.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 09:19 AM

@ peregrina --

You are welcome to the last word -- esp when so cogently and comprehensively and comprehensibly expressed in such incomparably insightful aperçus as

"lumping me together with what you presume to be my identity into with a single large bunch."

Adieu

❤☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺❤

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 09:10 AM

Not to belabour old battles from dead threads...... (but if Israel can be brought up as an example!
When Ireland was partitioned and the administration in the Six Counties announced its intention was to set up a Protestant State subservient to Britain in which Catholics would be exclude from office where possible and if not, neutralised among the first things it did was to dismantle the Proportional Representation electoral system and replace it with a first-past-the-post one.
This lead to an undemocratic and repressively divided sectarian state which never changed until conditions there brought about open warfare which spread to mainland Britain - that was what brought them to teh conference table - which doesn't seem to have reached the tea break yet, let alone a solution.
First-past-the-post makes a mockery of the term 'democracy'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 07:58 AM

Ireland has a PR system which has just managed to defeat one of the most unpopular measures ever introduced by a government – water charges – it would never have happened in Britain
Any electoral system depends on how it is used and who can use it.
Ireland did well out of being a fully consenting member of Europe rather than the "shall I – shan't I" approach taken by Britain.
The gains of membership were destroyed, not by Europe but by the greed of the bankers and the corruption and incompetence of the politicians who put and kept them there.
Under PR, the Irish people managed to create a stalemate lasting for months which prevented the people who placed Ireland in its predicament from waltzing back into office on a first-past-the-post system and forced all the parties to openly co-operate – something else that never would happen in Britain.
Water charges, hopefully, will now be voted out of existence and some of the bankers who milked Ireland dry are now on trial for their dishonest behaviour
That certainly would never have happened in Britain
Even the police force of Ireland has been placed in the spotlight and made answerable for past crimes and incompetences.
There's democracy and democracy, it seems – stability is worth s.f.a. if it doesn't serve the people as a whole
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 07:37 AM

Well well MGM.

Personal insult or ad hominem remarks: the final resort of those who have no sound rational arguments. I won't copy you by indulging in praeteritio and insult.

And once again you engage in the nasty tactic of lumping me together with what you presume to be my identity into with a single large bunch. Yes, classic us versus them thinking. Have you read Yuval Harari's book Sapiens? I think not.

Tell me why you think the very old have a right to determine the shape of a polity for those who will be stuck in it long afterwards? Has it escaped you that many people did favour a lower age of democratic participation for this referendum? Or would you prefer to disenfranchise those you regard as insufficiently rational, sensible and intelligent??

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 07:18 AM

Your opinion as to my 'tone' is of little interest to me, peregrina.

I note your wish virtually to disenfranchise me on account of my being old enough to have lived long enough to survive the Blitz on London, although my N London school near my then home was destroyed in an air raid in 1940, and a landmine fell less than ¼-mile from our house in 1944 and blew out several windows; serve my country in its armed services; work long enough to qualify as an old age pensioner — your thanks for all of which would appear to be to endeavour to prevent my having any say in how succeeding generations of the nation I have served should be governed.

Comment, in any 'tone' in which I might have chosen to deliver it, would be superfluous. I can't imagine such proposals would be very widely supported by many of your fellow citizens, most of whom [to avoid the sort of mildly pejorative locution to which you appear to take such peculiarly fastidious exception] I would take to be rather more sensible, rational and intelligent than are you.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:49 AM

In fact, we have elected representatives in the EU and they can veto provisions.

But ours have not served us well. Other EU countries saved their steel industries. UK EU reps vetoed provisions to help.

Mr Farage himself is a Euro MEP rep--just check on his attendance record and see how often he has turned up, how often he exercises his duty to his constituents to vote. If there's a failure of democracy, it's to be laid at his door for not fulfilling his elected duty.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:31 AM

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:28 PM
Talking of non-democracy care to tell us who is responsible for introducing legislation in the EU? - Rhetorical question - It is the EU Commission, a group of unelected officials - EU legislation "involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove."

Can you explain how that is different from the UK system where the UK unelected civil service drafts legislation in relation to political aims for the politicians to approve or disapprove.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:07 AM

Michael, please raise the tone.

Comments about 'you' that lump people together (and in this case refer to all of their views as if they are a monolithic group) are not really very helpful not to mention silly suggestions about moving parts of their body. It's all part of the pernicious way of seeing the world in terms of static us-versus them blocks instead of--to adapt Jo Cox's words-- looking for a common, shared, humanity, and affirming that what joins us is greater than what divides us.

If we change anything about representation, proportional having failed to win one test, I suggest that we give proportional weighting by age. Those who will be longest affected by any major change should have a larger say. And anyone old enough to operate a motor vehicle or enroll in the army should be eligible to vote.
Those who will be likely to live with the consequences for a shorter time, have a smaller say.

One of the tragedies of the current predicament is that it's such a massive kicking away of ladders.
Those who benefitted from free university education remove that opportunity from the young. (And sell on the educational debt for a profit.) Those who benefitted from the post-War NHS and Welfare state, and later the benefits of Common Market and EU kick it away from the young. A fine legacy, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:06 AM

"Is that the Britain that you constantly disparage and denigrate?"
As far as I am concerned, Britain is its people not the institutions that have ground it into the shit in pursuit of yet more wealth.
It is the people you have described as too lazy to work, preferring to cadge off the state rather than abandon their families, get on their bikes and pedal down to London to join the dole queues in the hope of picking something up there and live god knows where.
The Britain I "disparage and denigrate" are those who hate the British people and persistently support the establishment that has fucked the country up.
You have made it quite clear who your "Britain" is - (Date: 17 Jun 16 - 06:58 AM) you told us that the family comes second to the state, that to support the family is to betray the country - I've told you what that is - you seem to have accepted that as a badge of honour
The Britain that I respect and support is the one I grew up and worked in all my life, - the people forced to live on the shitty housing estates and work on the docks, who got up off their arses day after day, all their lives to do a day's work and who put up with Tory twats telling them they were all lazy, greedy, know-nothings and do-nothings.
My Britain is not the bankers (excuse the mis-spelling) and the entrepreneurs who are now crashing the country into recession after recession and the politicians who have created a situation where that will continue until they are stopped
Your "successful" is a Britain without rights run for the benefit of those who already have enough for ten lifetimes.
Not mine.
Your purported love of Britain is based on a hatred of and contempt for the vast majority of its population – the actual wealth producers – your Britain is the real spongers and the institutions – the Generals and the royal hangers-on, the flags and the ciphers - not its people
How can you love and respect a country amd despise its people?
What a ****** pair of blimpish Tory stereotypes!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 05:23 AM

... Nor does it always result in the sort of government they would like at that, does it? Italy & France have had PR for a long time; and a fine example of stability their govts have provided over the years since end of WWii, eh! Israel has had PR since its inception in 1948; resulting in a series of election successes of late years for the sort of govt to make those erstwhile supporters who laboured all those years for the state's establishment want to throw up. Or perhaps you two like the present Israeli admin's ways of working? Plenty of 9·to·5 sez that well·meaning boobies like the pair of you don't!


≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 04:59 AM

But this 'gravely flawed' British system is the one repeatedly chosen democratically by the British people in several surveys — and an actual honest·2·god referendum in 2011, in which proposals for your beloved proportional representation were thoroughly and incontrovertibly defeated. Those like peregrina & Steve just adore democracy, don't they -- always provided that the judgment of the δεμος just happens to come down in approval of the sort of system they'd prefer. When it doesn't [as, I reiterate, only 5 years ago!] they wiggle their ɷ's and get ever so sulky and peevish! Great advertisements for their sort of 'democracy', aren't they!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 04:33 AM

Thank you Steve Shaw.

Teribus, the tone and content of your message exemplify precisely the kind of toxic discourse of contempt and partial truths and justification of inhumanity that can bring such terrifying consequences.

My long reply was just swallowed up by a technical error, reminding me that I can look for serenity and try to do some good things nearby instead of choosing to tilt at windmills.

I will only say: children are taught to share toys and talk instead of hitting. It's a hard lesson. Europe is now one of the richest areas of the globe. yet in the UK, the poor are demonized, food bank use is going up, while executives get pay rises too large to spend on necessities in several lifetimes. Fear of foriegners, refugees, and of redistribution fuel the brexit campaign.
We should be ashamed to dehumanize people in need and people fleeing desperate conditions that would make us flee too. Turning victims into targets of fear and hate.

Before people complain of loss of sovereignty, they could do well to look at the grave flaws in the British system: no proportional representation, supposed mandates railroaded through by a governmet elected with a tiny majority and chosen by far less than half the population, and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:57 PM

Well, the UK has been outvoted on 58 issues in the last fourteen years but has agreed on over two and a half thousand issues. Most of those 58 issues have hardly been life-threatening. Pretty good for a club now with 28 member states. The basis of peregrina's statement on wars is bloody obvious. The two biggest wars of all time by a country mile were between European states, at least at their outsets, and the Common Market's forerunner was set up with the express aim of preventing such conflicts in the future. Irrelevant bluster about unrelated wars elsewhere does not dilute that point. And you fail to inform us that Norway must comply with rules on free movement of people, the numero uno campaigning gambit of the racist "out" campIgn. As for workers' pension funds, we have one of the worst state pension provisions in Europe and we have arseholes like Philip Green sucking money out of pension funds. Nothing to do with the EU one way or the other. As for unelected officials, you appear to be resoundingly silent about the half-dead, the unelected party lackeys and the men in frocks who infest the Lords. Last I heard, they were heavily involved in making our laws...

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:28 PM

From your post peregrine I take it that you are not a UK resident and posted what you did from complete and utter ignorance.

Oddly enough we actually managed to survive on our own for over a thousand years before it became part of what the British electorate thought was a trading partnership.

If Britain does not have a democracy then there are many countries in trouble as it was upon the British model that their systems were formed.

Since the end of the Second World War Britain has been under Labour Governments for as long as it has been under Conservative Governments, so do not for one second attempt to land all the country's ills on the shoulders of one political party - it doesn't wash.

Talking of non-democracy care to tell us who is responsible for introducing legislation in the EU? - Rhetorical question - It is the EU Commission, a group of unelected officials - EU legislation "involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove."

Norway complies with less than 20% of all EU legislation and it's Parliament has the final say on whatever it does accept from Brussels. Norway does pay into the EU's coffers but Norway also makes a profit from the EU.

"The small landmass of Europe had one of the bloodiest more war-ridden histories of any corner of the earth for many centuries"

Really peregrina? The basis for that statement is what exactly. Care to tell us about wars on other continents over the same period or are you trying to tell us that elsewhere in the world was all sweetness and light, remembering of course that Genghis Khan eliminated the entire population of Afghanistan when he invaded. That Shaka raided and slaughtered subservient tribes each year in southern Africa enslaving those he did not kill. Various states in what is now known as India were almost permanently at war with one another. Or were you not aware of those facts peregrina?

"getting out will not lead to freedom or prosperity. It will remove some of the few
checks that help peace, human rights, social justice and other humane values and lead to untrammelled progress towards an ideology of cuts, austerity, profits for the rich, selling off of public assets, zenophobia, racism and worse."

Of course it will peregrine, the very second we vote to leave children will be forced up chimneys and slavery will be reintroduced. The profits you witter on about pay peoples wages and secure their employment, they ensure that workers pension funds are able to secure the old in their retirement. Of course we could always learn and follow the example of the "workers paradise" that was the Soviet Union. Now oddly enough I do not see hundreds of thousands lined up on the borders of Russia begging to be allowed in - care to tell us why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:20 PM

Well said. As for those charlatans who claim that the EU is "undemocratic," I should like to point out that this referendum couldn't be more undemocratic if it tried. Tens of millions of people with little or no knowledge of our economy, let alone of our relationships within the EU, are being asked to vote yes or no on an issue so complex that it foxes every economist I've listened to, yet the people are being bombarded with populist and simplistic arguments about immigration, pandering, quite deliberately, to the lowest racist instincts of as many people as possible. That is a subversion of democracy, propagated by a bunch of hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:52 PM

I wish non UK residents would not just sound off without correct and fuller information.

The UK gets many many benefits from being part of a peaceful confederation. Said benefits include environmental protection, workers rights, and free medical care for UK citizens in Europe. Not to mention human rights.
All of those things will be rolled back or dimished. UK's own government is both a monarchy and a kind of elected dictatorship without the checks and balances of recent properly constitutional polities.

The UK has more non-EU immigrants than EU ones. WIthout immigrant labour, the health service and care homes for the very old would be even unsustainable.

If people perceive pressure on services and resources, that is because of a conservative government's failure to invest in the infrastructure for health, education, and transport because of an ideology of austerity that coexists with a drastic increase in social inequality and uneven distribution of wages.

The small landmass of Europe had one of the bloodiest more war-ridden histories of any corner of the earth for many centuries. Now it is unthinkable to imagine armed conflict between EU states.

The UK has not lost sovereignty. It can vote on EU legislation and has opted out of a large number of provisions. If it leaves the EU but wishes certain kinds of trade agreement, it will still have to pay in and accept other provisions, but without any chance to negotiate them. Just look at Norway.

US-ians would be shocked by many aspects of non-democracy in this constitutional monarchy. The UK does not have a democracy. It has monarch and a plutocratic/kleptocratic system for protecting the power of the rich.

And now the media his been rife with toxic hate-stories fomenting division and hatred. And lies. This is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. There should be enough for all if it were divided more equally. People enjoy free health care and a standard of material comfort unimaginable a century ago. And yet they feel that there is not enough to go around. That hatred led to tragedy a few days ago.

No: getting out will not lead to freedom or prosperity. It will remove some of the few
checks that help peace, human rights, social justice and other humane values and lead to untrammelled progress towards an ideology of cuts, austerity, profits for the rich, selling off of public assets, zenophobia, racism and worse. As many have already pointed out, the leave-campaign and UKIP are drumming up sentinements reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:26 PM

For a sane and dispassionate assessment of the wilder claims of the "Brexit" brigade, especially with regard to the bogus claims of our weekly contribution to the EU, I recommend today's special edition of More Or Less on Radio 4, on this morning, available on iPlayer.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:22 PM

"an appalling state for a country with Britain's history to be in."

Is that the Britain that you constantly disparage and denigrate?

The 25% attributed to "other businesses" is manufacturing - same source different article on his blog. I take it that you didn't reference that as it didn't suit your purposes.

One of the reasons that Great Britain has been as successful as t has been is because it is prepared to adapt and does not attempt to live in the past as you do.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:59 PM

Video that's Anti Brexit

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 11:23 AM

And my point is about having a manufacturing industry to export.

That is not what you stated.
You said, "We have no manufacturing industry"

That is shite!

"Britain is still easily one of the 10 biggest manufacturing nations in the world." (FT)

So we do have manufacturing industry, and your statement was wrong.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 11:18 AM

"The pie chart is about exports, not manufacturing."
And my point is about having a manufacturing industry to export.
None of the industries which once formed the basis of our economy are viable - we rely on importing everything we need - an appalling state for a country with Britain's history to be in.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stanron
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 11:13 AM

The pie chart is about exports, not manufacturing.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:27 AM

Don't you ever call me obsessive again - you have the facts, the act you can only respond by repeating something that doesn't relate to the reality of those facts is an indication that there is somewing seriously wrong with you.Go away and "win" something

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:14 AM

You said, "We have no manufacturing industry"

That is shite!

"Britain is still easily one of the 10 biggest manufacturing nations in the world." (FT)

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 07:31 AM

"You have said it again even though you know it is shite!"
Care to examine this PIE CHART
%39 os Britain's exports are of money - finances.
%25 are of unspecified "other businesses
%13 is insurance
%1 is unspecified goods - cars - assembled in Britain
%4 chemicals
%4 transportation
%2 personal and cultural recreation
%2 Communications
%6 Pharmesuticals
None of these can be considered British manufacturing industries.
As I said - Britain has no idustrial base
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:42 AM

Jim,
We have no manufacturing industy

You have said it again even though you know it is shite!

"Britain is still easily one of the 10 biggest manufacturing nations in the world." (FT)

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:25 AM

"You are on record as saying the opposite with regard to Ireland, you couldn't praise the EU highly enough in fact."
No I am not - that is simply untrue - bu you are quite at liberty to prove me wrong.
I said Ireland did well out of Europe - I also said that Europe shat all over Greece.
I said I had opposed the EU and not voted for it in the British referendum.
My support for remaining in the EU has always bee a question of the best on offer in the present circumstances, particularly as regards employment - nothing more.
" in fact. I'm paraphrasing"
In fact you are making it up by being dishonesty manipulative in what I have said.
As far as I am concerned, the E.U. is a gathering of capitalist nations - we live under capitalism so we may as well take the best of what's on offer.
"I believe now that we have the fifth largest economy in the world according to five different surveys.
To have a necessary industrial base it needs to have large industries - we had plenty once till Mad Maggie deliberately destroyed them for profit.
You have always agreed that Britain not only has no industry but it doesn't deserve one as our products were crap and our workers lazy.
We can't exist as an industrial nation on cottage industries and souvenirs.
Out industries are based on imported components - what we sell has been produced elsewhere.
Suits the already bloatedly opulent, screws the rest of us.
We have no manufacturing industy and no nation can successfully survibe by having to relay on others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:42 AM

"I don't believe Europe to be a panacea for our problems" - Jim Carroll

Really Jim? You are on record as saying the opposite with regard to Ireland, you couldn't praise the EU highly enough in fact. I'm paraphrasing but the foundation of Ireland's success was the EU IIRC.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:36 AM

Jim to have an industrial base or a manufacturing base does not necessarily mean that it has to involve the heavy industries on the scale you seem to imagine.

I believe now that we have the fifth largest economy in the world according to five different surveys. Keith A's information is normally correct and he does provide real sources which are verifiable so if he provides sources {The Financial Times} that says "Britain is still easily one of the 10 biggest manufacturing nations in the world." Then who am I to say that they have got it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 04:30 AM

"Jim, I am amazed that you are still arguing the point."
And I am amazed you are still clinging on to tor obviously false statement when your mate has just cut the legs from under you.
If Britain has an industrial base you would show where it has and not whom you claim has said it has - if we have an industial base, what it it made up of - not steel, no ships, not textiles, not cars, not coal - your mate has just told us that they can't compete - pretty much the same as "Irish hatred" - it's there but I won't tell you what it is.
I am also amazed that your mate should produce an excellent quote which totally undermines his and your whole approach to Britain to prove something I have never suggested.
I don't believe Europe to be a panacea for our problems - I don't trust its purpose or its politics, but in thh present situation, it is infinitely preferable to the immediate alternative of accelerating unemployment with nowhere to go.
I make no apologies for supporting the interests of the people as a whole to those of a greedy, predatory and nationally destructive bunch of vultures - but we all have our heroes.
As I said, tying the will of the pople to the interests of the State, especially one that is firmly tied in with profiteering big business, is fascism, pure and simple - not a system I put put my vote in the box for (not that you get to vote for such a monstrous idea anyway - contradiction in terms)
I am not surprised that Teribus continues his abusively childish behaviour - a sure sign of someone with no confidence in his own ideas so he feels he needs to bully and bluster to get them across.
You really shouldn't be surprised when people attack you Keith - your behaviour more than merits it and you certainly aren't averse too attacking others when it suts you - "glass houses" - remember?.
Yours,
Jim Carroll the "obsessive" "Muppet", "igonramus" "anti-Bristish" "antisemitic" "Leftie......

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 04:15 AM

Jim Carroll - 18 Jun 16 - 02:56 AM

Our major industries Jim were subsidised to the hilt – illegal under EEC laws and directives – once the subsidies stopped those industries folded.

The quality of British goods was unmatchable throughout the world

IF that was true I would love to hear the explanation as to why nobody bought those goods.

" Buying cheap for the working person is a false economy,

Matter of individual choice, which can hardly be blamed on Government or manufacturers direction.

Blaming British Labour costs is typical Tory double-speak - at no time in British history has the working person been overpaid - Tory double-speak.

If the high cost of labour was not an issue then jobs would not have gone overseas. If irresponsible action by trades unions hadn't been so rife in the 1960s and 1970s then a reputation for dependability and ability to meet contractual deadlines would have enhanced British industry.

To keep an industry and companies within that industry competitive change is constantly required. Everything must be in balance. Strikes affect the ability to meet commitments and raise unit costs paying for those increased costs and paying contractual penalties reduces profit, which in turn adversely affects the ability of companies to carry out any investment programmes.

Profit has completely elbowed out national well-being and planning for Britain's future

It would appear that "profit" to you is a dirty word – Profit in any business is essential for there to be a healthy economy, for there to be "national well-being" and for the nation to have any sort of future.

Out – And into the World

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 03:47 AM

Jim, I am amazed that you are still arguing the point.
You said, "The UK economy is based on having no manufacturing industry," but in fact "Britain is still easily one of the 10 biggest manufacturing nations in the world." (FT)

Your statement was wrong, I was right to challenge it, and Steve was wrong to attack me for it.
End of.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 03:46 AM

Good piece in The Spectator:

Out - and into the world

"Since 1975 the EU has mutated in exactly the way we then feared and now resembles nothing so much as the Habsburg Empire in its dying days. A bloated bureaucracy that has outgrown all usefulness. A parliament that represents many nations, but with no democratic legitimacy."

"Michael Gove revealed how, as a cabinet member, he regularly finds himself having to process edicts, rules and regulations that have been framed at European level. Laws that no one in Britain had asked for, and which no one elected to the House of Commons has the power to change. What we refer to as British government is increasingly no such thing. It involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove."

Simple comment on Carroll's latest cliché riddled rant full of empty "working class warrior" rhetoric - IF {BIG IF at that} everything you say there is true, I do not doubt for a second that YOU are idiot enough to believe it, care to tell us all why hundreds of thousands of people have flocked to THIS country rather than settle in the idyll that is Europe?

23rd June 2016 hopefully the day that Great Britain votes to leave the EU - then you will see how amenable to change the EU becomes.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 02:56 AM

"Paying £250 per ton for coal when our competitors"
Thank you for confirming that our major industries have been deliberately and systematically destroyed and have been for profit - now please go and tell your friend.
No country that relies totally on imports can be sustainable, particularly in a crisis.
The quality of British goods was unmatchable throughout the world despite your having described them as "crap" (it takes a true patriot to describe British Steel as "crap").
Buying cheap for the working person is a false economy, the inferior quality of the materials means that they no longer have the usage-life and have to be replaced in a shorter time - fine for the profiteer, more costly for the user.
Blaming British Labour costs is typical Tory double-speak - at no time in British history has the working person been overpaid - Tory double-speak.   
Try fly-by-night profiteering, under-investment, lack on incentive on the part of the worker and simple mismanagement.
Profit has completely elbowed out national well-being and planning for Britain's future - the quick buck and lets blame the workers has replaced planning for the future - hence the hand-to-mouth policies which have lessened the values of peoples' lives.
Not only have the British people as a whole suffered directly from these policies, but the slave-like conditions the workers who produce the foreign goods we buy have to endure has destabalised the entire planet - Britain has now become and investor in neo-slavery.
The results of this have been a massive refugee crisis, destabaliing national upheavals which have been capitalised on by religious nutters, creating an international terrorism crisis, the necessity to prop up despots to keep the oil flowing........
This system is no longer fit for purpose - an administration which should serve all the people, now exclusively serves only the most wealthy and the most acquisitively predatory with a nod to national well-being only at election time.
If the economy is more profitable, the British citizen is not benefiting from that profitability - proven beyond dispute by the accelerating gap between rich and poor, and the eroding away of the rights of ordinary people who have never had a sufficient say in their working lives, but now have none whatever - a voice through the unions, security of employment, a choice in what we spend our lives doing, security of tenure..... gone within the last thirty years.
The world is facing a new FINANCIAL CRISIS and things are due to get worse - all the Little Englander walls are not going to exacerbate that situation - at a time we need friends, we are being asked to adopt an "I want to be alone" isolationist policy in the best Greta Garbo tradition in order to win back an independence which was long sold before we became part of the E.U.
All the workers' fault and the immigrants, of course (as claimed by the claimed by the sewer level advertising now reached by Ukip and Teribus the Tory.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 08:48 PM

Maybe for once we could treat the politicians as role models, and calm down and give the campaign arguments a rest for a day or so, especially the hostile stuff, as an expression of respect for Jo Cox, who seems to have been a pretty decent person, and the kind of MP we'd all like to have.

It seems pretty likely that, whatever other things in the killer's history might have contributed to his actions, what actually triggered this will have been the heat building up around the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 07:08 PM

Am I allowed to be flippant for just a sec? Your mention of Morris Marinas reminded me of a day in around 1980 when my next-door neighbour in Loughton, where we lived at the time (he was called Keith, as it happens), had proudly taken delivery of his brand-new firm's car, a Morris Marina. As we stood there billing and cooing over the shiny beast that had just 25 miles on the clock, my cursory inspection revealed rust in most of the seams. I didn't have the heart to deflate him, though over the next two years I watched that car turn into a rusty bucket. He didn't keep it for long!

Anyone remember Maggie Thatcher doing the Great British big sell for the then brand-new Austin Maestro? I think the newsclip had her getting into one outside Number Ten. I had one of those for eighteen miserable months. It was the worst car to drive in Christendom (I could write a book), and, no matter how carefully you drove the bugger, 26 to the gallon was as good as it got. Amazing when you consider how light it was, what with all that rust dropping off it!

Back to grimness now, chaps...

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 06:32 PM

Paying £250 per ton for coal when our competitors were paying around £8 per ton made our electricity rather expensive for our heavy industries. In the early days we were quite good at nuclear power but that got ditched as we had to have inefficient, polluting, coal fired power stations didn't we.

We made steel that nobody wanted as buyers could get perfectly suitable steel cheaper elsewhere. Quite good at high grade specialist materials though - only trouble with that is that there is no mass market for it.

The mass market British car industry compelled to use steel produced by British Steel that had been stockpiled for ages and pay the sky-high price for electricity managed to build cars that you could hear rusting and corroding away at fifty paces that nobody wanted, the Morris Marina; the Austin Allegro; the Hillman Imp; the Avenger - the list of poor quality mediocre products is endless. Quite good at high end luxury cars though - unfortunately no mass market for those either.

Shipping? Have a look at the size of the ships required by the world's customers - nowhere in the UK to build them plus pay the inflated costs for British steel and British power.

Textiles? Unit labour costs far too high in the UK, manufacturing costs too high in the UK. No wonder manufacturing moved abroad. But again the high-end top quality stuff we still do fairly well - but how many people are prepared to pay £1,600 for a scarf.

Then right across the board you had management that was hamstrung and militant and irresponsible trades unions more focused on their political ambitions than in looking after their members and the industries they were involved in.

Things really went ever so well for Britain, the British people and British Industry in the 1970s, we just didn't know what to do with all the money our heavy industries were making - well at least some on this forum believe that fairy tale, others know the truth, which explains why in 1979 we had a General Election, changed the Government and rang the changes that needed to be made before the country was totally ruined.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:52 PM

"ccess is free. You just have to answer a couple of questions."
Not interested
What you quoted was expansionism based on decades of shrinkage - a statement relative to an already terminally sick industrial base. sick industry
I asked
Do we suddenly have a textile industry again - or a steel industry, or a shipping industry, - have the mines suddenly reopened again - are we suddenly manufacturing components or car parts instead of just fitting them together?
If we have a healthy industry, just what does it comprise?
What do we manufacture
The world is now in permanent recession - who are we better than and how well are they doing?
We have no industries - we have permanent mass unemployment, the North of England is an unemployment black-spot since Maggie bulldozed it flat
Workers are no longer spinners, or weavers or miners or shipbuilders, or electricians or plumbers... or whatever we used to be - we are, by law, merely workers who are forced by Governmet edict to take whatever job we are offered whhether is suits our health, out family life, or financial situation or our personal preferences.
If I needed a job and could not find one I am trained for, I would be forced to stand at the Argos counter passing parcels to customers, or stacking shelves at Sainsburys or sweeping the streets - that is how things stand now if I am to draw on an insurance policy I paid into all of my working life.
Can't remember who invented the phrase "wage slave", but that is what all British people are now - obliged by law to accept any job w are offered.
"So, your statement is proved wrong."
And that sums up perfectly why you are what you are and not worth bothering with. It's not about exchanging ides, it's about winning
I'd have thought you'd have learned your lesson over the last few months but no here we are again.
Just go away Keith - you foul up every thread you touch
Sorry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:50 PM

"ccess is free. You just have to answer a couple of questions."
Not interested
What you quoted was expansionism based on decades of shrinkage - a statement relative to an already terminally sick industrial base. sick industry
I asked
Do we suddenly have a textile industry again - or a steel industry, or a shipping industry, - have the mines suddenly reopened again - are we suddenly manufacturing components or car parts instead of just fitting them together?
If we have a healthy industry, just what does it comprise?
What do we manufacture
The world is now in permanent recession - who are we better than?
We have no industries - we have permanent mass unemployment, the North of England is an unemployment black-spot since Maggie bulldozed it flat
Workers are no longer spinners, or weavers or miners or shipbuilders, or electricians or plumbers... or whatever we used to be - we are, by law, merely workers who are forced by Governmet edict to take whatever job we are offered whhether is suits our health, out family life, or financial situation or our personal preferences.
If I needed a job and could not find one I am trained for, I would be forced to stand at the Argos counter passing parcels to customers, or stacking shelves at Sainsburys or sweeping the streets - that is how things stand now if I am to draw on an insurance policy I paid into all of my working life.
Can't remember who invented the phrase "wage slave", but that is what all British people are now - obliged by law to accept any job w are offered.
"So, your statement is proved wrong."
And that sums up perfectly why you are what you are and not worth bothering with. It's not about exchanging ides, it's about winning
I'd have thought you'd have learned your lesson over the last few months but no here we are again.
Just go away Keith - you foul up every thread you touch
Sorry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:31 PM

I love the variety of posts herein to date. As a very young American I recall a family visit to Great Britain in 1969. It was one of the last years of Pounds Shillings and Farthings and Sixpences. Luckily I was good at math. I passed through London two years later and noticed that a New Penny was worth 2.4 pence but many prices were the same, an automatic 140% price boost.
The other thing I recall, though without any deep understanding, was there was a lot of talk about a U.S.E. United States of Europe. The average adult of the 60s had ready memories of WWII and solid perceptions of the Soviet Threat.

It's not my vote, but I've often thought over the unfairness and organized imbecility and prejudices latent in Congress, The United Nations, Brussels, and the old saying comes back to me:

"Yes the game is rigged. But it's the only game in town."

So I like Richard Bridge's post of 09 Jun 16 - 06:27 PM with Tobias Kliem's arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 17 Jun 16 - 03:16 PM

This is an FT article on the same subject
If anyone who has read the whole article agrees that the cherry picking and assessment in the post of 2:26 is any way reflected in the article id be very surprised

Bright Spots