Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Oh dear
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
A friend shared this with me today. He was at a conference of police nhs etc etc looking at how to reduce violence and he suggested an increase in happiness as defined on this scale is a part of the answer.
What do you think?
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)
Is this thread a mycrocosm (spelling) of society where aggressiveness is pervasive and becoming the norm
What do you think?
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)
Is this thread a mycrocosm (spelling) of society where aggressiveness is pervasive and becoming the norm
Last edited:
tommydazzle
Well-Known Member
Stats are fine when used appropriately but naturally politicians are adept at cherry picking. I always think the modal average would be a fairer reflection of earnings than the mean which is skewed by a few billionaires pushing up the value. What do most people earn. One knock on effect of low wages is that the treasury is receiving less income tax from an increasing pool of low wage earners, the very welcome IT free threshold of nearly £12000 - [a Lib Dem policy] must be revealing the extent of this to a government in denial.
I find it disgraceful that we have any homeless on our streets, especially veterans who have served their country.
I also agree that inequality in wages between the richest and poorest in society needs addressing because it’s scandalous.
However, you have just spouted a load of nonsense about the recent data I was quoting. The comparisons on jobs numbers being quoted in the press indicate that the increase in employment has been almost solely due to full time appointments (360000 quarterly year on year comparison from memory). In relation to the last quarter recorded 75% were full time jobs.
The wage growth figures quoted based on salary’s excluding bonuses is 3.3% !
I’m all for reasoned debate and people challenging arguments or putting forward alternative viewpoints but I can’t stand people lying to contradict/rubbish what someone with an opposing view has to say.
I wasn’t saying the whole world is wonderful, I was saying there is some good news out there if you’re willing to accept it.
Ps i don’t buy into this class war stuff...mentioning public sector workers and someone on a six figure salary in the same paragraph ?! That same person is paying (at least) tens of thousands in taxes, which goes towards keeping all our public sector services going ? Have a go at the ridiculous multi million pound salaries the ftse ceo’s are taking home by all means, not those that probably working their arses off and making sacrifices to build a better life for themselves and their families
Rant over !
Don’t disagree. They say that employment figures often lag behind the economy, however, considering the massive uncertainty over the last couple of years, it’s still positive
Amazing actually. Which makes it worse if that collapses because of Brexit.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It's a bunch of saddos with nothing better to do, myself included.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I love self deprecation lol
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
First of all - the figures that you’ve used are not accurate, merely the point of view of a government trying to tell you that everything they are doing is amazing. They are manipulated, and if you just take a look around you it’s evident that their claims of prosperity are farcical. The press are happy to facilitate this spurious nonsense, after all keeping the status quo helps the privileged to stay that way.
Secondly - I never made any assertion of a ‘class war’ - you made the link by putting together two separate sentences. I agree wholly about how we should be looking at the obscene salaries of CEO’s etc.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That's all it is at the end of the day, people with no influence over what will happen trying to sound like experts. Though it is quite revealing seeing some of them repeating things which are objectively false0
Astute
Well-Known Member
And even more revealing knowing most know more than some who are a part of the process of taking us out.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I don't know which way to take this
Push for more generous EU no-deal offer
Good news as it shows some countries are worried about what will happen with a no deal and don't want things to change from the present. But it also tells those who would be happy with a no deal that they could get more.
And it seems that some countries are willing to try and make deals with us that are bot allowed because of regulations. That would make a mockery of us leaving.
To me there is only one answer. They should all get round a table and do what is best for all. After everything that has happened and everything we have been told we still have one of the strongest economies. There needs to be ties between us and the EU. We are running out of time. We need the chest beating to end.
Another referendum isn't needed. I still think it would cause the most harm. But the so called red lines and nothing else can be offered needs to be dropped. Then they can come to a sensible end of this shitstorm and do what is best for all.
Push for more generous EU no-deal offer
Good news as it shows some countries are worried about what will happen with a no deal and don't want things to change from the present. But it also tells those who would be happy with a no deal that they could get more.
And it seems that some countries are willing to try and make deals with us that are bot allowed because of regulations. That would make a mockery of us leaving.
To me there is only one answer. They should all get round a table and do what is best for all. After everything that has happened and everything we have been told we still have one of the strongest economies. There needs to be ties between us and the EU. We are running out of time. We need the chest beating to end.
Another referendum isn't needed. I still think it would cause the most harm. But the so called red lines and nothing else can be offered needs to be dropped. Then they can come to a sensible end of this shitstorm and do what is best for all.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
May’s red lines have gone a long way to ensure the situation is where it is now, I ultimately think she will end up doing a major u-turn/climb down and the EU offering some kind of concessions like the ones in the article
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
We’ve had Davis going on about doing individual trade deals with countries in the EU based upon the UK’s needs, his belief that there would be a transitional period in the event of no deal and Raab saying he didn’t know the importance of Dover - Calais.
It’s been a shocking state of affairs, the country would have been better off sending a contingency from here. Mart and Grendel as good cop bad cop routine maybe
Astute
Well-Known Member
I still think there is more chance of remaining in the EU than leaving without a deal. It is mainly a bunch of brainless nobodies championing leaving without a deal. And May knows she hasn't a chance of getting her crap through now.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
the fact Davis was so ill informed on the subject he was minister of but still goes and bags a £60,000 a year for 20 hours work gig for JCB just shows you how fucked this country is for the normal working man.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
The amount of politicians who can't grasp this simple concept is fucking frightening. They're either thick as mince or too bone idle to look into the ins and outs of one of the biggest political events for decades. Whichever it is it's embarrassing.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Isn’t he a climate change denier also? Nice to see he’s making “informed” decisions.
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
heard his name often but don't know a lot about him to be honest. Judging by this clip, he talks bollocks.
Most brexiteers are automatically climate deniers. They want pesky environmental regulations removed.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
From certain quarters there does seem to be a conspiracy theory that global warming is a liberal and left wing conspiracy theory.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure he is. The mentality fits anyway.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
To be fair you can’t be pro Brexit and pro evidence and reason.
(Yes Dellingpole is a climate change denier, because his opinions are those of whichever rich person is paying him. How people don’t see Brexit is a ruse by the global elite is hilarious. Banks, Farage, JRM, all make money on this shit and still the morons think they’re the voice of the people - bunch of fucking rubes)
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
From...
Thread by @LBSProtect: "Given that @guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will n […]"
Given that @guyverhofstadtGuy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will not accept I thought I would do a thread about him.
In particular, where does he get his power?
What democratic mandate has he got?
Guy is a Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") and is the EP's spokesperson on Brexit.
He therefore speaks for around 500 million European people.
Let's see with what level of democratic legitimacy he speaks for 500 million people...
What you are about to see is typical EU democracy.
A hint of a vote here, a smattering of consent there, overall, just enough to make the system appear democratic to a casual observer.
But it's just a veneer of democracy hiding a deeply authoritarian reality.
Guy was not elected as an MEP.
The Belgians do not elect individuals in the EP elections; they vote for political parties.
Guy's political party is the Open Flemish Liberals & Democrats ("the OFLD").
The OFLD got 858,872 votes in the 2014 election.
Under the Belgian electoral college system that meant the OFLD got 3 MEPs (out of 21).
The OFLD got 12.89% of the popular vote in the 2014 EP election.
To put that into context, UKIP got 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 UK general election.
The winners of the 2014 EP election in Belgium were the New Flemish Alliance, a centre-right nationalist and separatist party who increased their share of the vote by three hundred percent.
The reality...
GUY IS AN MEP BECAUSE HIS PARTY GOT HAMMERED IN AN ELECTION.
So how did this MEP from this minority party in one of the European small states come to speak for the EP - and 500 million people - on Brexit?
The process I am about to outline should make anyone who cares about democracy feel very unsettled
MEPs elect a Brexit spokesperson in an open vote, choosing from a range of possible candidates with different views from across the political spectrum?
No.
Of course they didn't.
Guy was APPOINTED by the CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE EP ("the Conference").
The Conference meets twice a month, in private, and is closed to all but 8 - yes 8 - MEPs.
The 8 MEPs are the chairs of the 8 broad political groups into which the EP has organised itself.
"What groups?" you ask, "I don't vote for a group in the EP elections".
Oh yes you do.
The political parties from all the member states have organised themselves into 8 broad political groups. It is those 8 groups which operate in the EP, not the political parties themselves.
Each of the 8 groups has a "President".
Each of the 8 Presidents attends the Conference.
One of the 8 groups is the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe ("ALDE").
The Belgian party OFLD is in ALDE.
Guy is the (unelected, obviously) president of ALDE.
So Guy attends the Conference.
Do you see how the VOTERS are getting more and more distant?
It gets worse.
So did the Conference meet, consider a range of candidates, hold an open vote and declare the winner?
No.
Of course not.
Well did they even meet and have a debate about candidates then?
Nope.
The Conference didn't even meet and there was no vote.
Guy met up with Martin Schulz (remember him?) informally.
MS was the President of EP group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ("PASD").
Two other group Presidents joined them.
In a backroom, they alone appointed Guy to speak for 500m people.
WITH NO VOTE AT ALL.
The Presidents of the other political groups were informed of the appointment and the announcement was made to the world that Guy was the EP spokesperson on Brexit.
An ARCH-FEDERALIST, an extremist even by EU standards, a fanatic basically had become the EP Brexit spokesperson.
Look at Guy's timeline today.
He has tweeted that the EP will refuse to approve any form of Withdrawal Agreement without the Backstop in it.
How the hell does he know?
It's supposed to be a vote. But democracy never works properly in the EU.
Even the Parliament - the only quasi-democratic institute in the whole rotten Union - is controlled, co-ordinated and centrally managed by the political groups.
Guy knows which way the EP will vote because he and few of his buddies control the EP.
This man hold the interests and the well-being of 500 million in his hands. He is a key player in a set of extremely important international negotiations.
All because his fringe party, in a small state, lost an election.
And because three other blokes decided he should be.
Try and think about this from the point of view of a French agricultural worker or a German manufacturing worker.
In what credible democratic sense does Guy speak for them?
How the hell does he know whether they want a backstop or not?
Try to follow the democratic chain?
If you cannot follow the democratic links in the chain from the people to the representative, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot comprehend, or even ascertain, the process by which the representative obtains his power, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot conceive of a possible democratic method by which the representative can be removed, censured or otherwise controlled by the electorate, IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
What is a Spanish worker supposed to do to replace Guy? Where should she start? Who does she protest to?
I've done this kind of research exercise many times with regard to the EU's democratic credentials.
I promise you the result is the same every single time.
Try it. Pick an EU bigwig and unravel where his/her power comes from.
And then try telling me the EU is democratic.
END
A Belgian chap has asked me to point out that I have over-simplified the Belgian electoral college. He has provided two links. I don't really understand them but am posting them for transparency sake.
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/results…
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/preferr
Thread by @LBSProtect: "Given that @guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will n […]"
Given that @guyverhofstadtGuy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will not accept I thought I would do a thread about him.
In particular, where does he get his power?
What democratic mandate has he got?
Guy is a Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") and is the EP's spokesperson on Brexit.
He therefore speaks for around 500 million European people.
Let's see with what level of democratic legitimacy he speaks for 500 million people...
What you are about to see is typical EU democracy.
A hint of a vote here, a smattering of consent there, overall, just enough to make the system appear democratic to a casual observer.
But it's just a veneer of democracy hiding a deeply authoritarian reality.
Guy was not elected as an MEP.
The Belgians do not elect individuals in the EP elections; they vote for political parties.
Guy's political party is the Open Flemish Liberals & Democrats ("the OFLD").
The OFLD got 858,872 votes in the 2014 election.
Under the Belgian electoral college system that meant the OFLD got 3 MEPs (out of 21).
The OFLD got 12.89% of the popular vote in the 2014 EP election.
To put that into context, UKIP got 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 UK general election.
The winners of the 2014 EP election in Belgium were the New Flemish Alliance, a centre-right nationalist and separatist party who increased their share of the vote by three hundred percent.
The reality...
GUY IS AN MEP BECAUSE HIS PARTY GOT HAMMERED IN AN ELECTION.
So how did this MEP from this minority party in one of the European small states come to speak for the EP - and 500 million people - on Brexit?
The process I am about to outline should make anyone who cares about democracy feel very unsettled
MEPs elect a Brexit spokesperson in an open vote, choosing from a range of possible candidates with different views from across the political spectrum?
No.
Of course they didn't.
Guy was APPOINTED by the CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE EP ("the Conference").
The Conference meets twice a month, in private, and is closed to all but 8 - yes 8 - MEPs.
The 8 MEPs are the chairs of the 8 broad political groups into which the EP has organised itself.
"What groups?" you ask, "I don't vote for a group in the EP elections".
Oh yes you do.
The political parties from all the member states have organised themselves into 8 broad political groups. It is those 8 groups which operate in the EP, not the political parties themselves.
Each of the 8 groups has a "President".
Each of the 8 Presidents attends the Conference.
One of the 8 groups is the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe ("ALDE").
The Belgian party OFLD is in ALDE.
Guy is the (unelected, obviously) president of ALDE.
So Guy attends the Conference.
Do you see how the VOTERS are getting more and more distant?
It gets worse.
So did the Conference meet, consider a range of candidates, hold an open vote and declare the winner?
No.
Of course not.
Well did they even meet and have a debate about candidates then?
Nope.
The Conference didn't even meet and there was no vote.
Guy met up with Martin Schulz (remember him?) informally.
MS was the President of EP group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ("PASD").
Two other group Presidents joined them.
In a backroom, they alone appointed Guy to speak for 500m people.
WITH NO VOTE AT ALL.
The Presidents of the other political groups were informed of the appointment and the announcement was made to the world that Guy was the EP spokesperson on Brexit.
An ARCH-FEDERALIST, an extremist even by EU standards, a fanatic basically had become the EP Brexit spokesperson.
Look at Guy's timeline today.
He has tweeted that the EP will refuse to approve any form of Withdrawal Agreement without the Backstop in it.
How the hell does he know?
It's supposed to be a vote. But democracy never works properly in the EU.
Even the Parliament - the only quasi-democratic institute in the whole rotten Union - is controlled, co-ordinated and centrally managed by the political groups.
Guy knows which way the EP will vote because he and few of his buddies control the EP.
This man hold the interests and the well-being of 500 million in his hands. He is a key player in a set of extremely important international negotiations.
All because his fringe party, in a small state, lost an election.
And because three other blokes decided he should be.
Try and think about this from the point of view of a French agricultural worker or a German manufacturing worker.
In what credible democratic sense does Guy speak for them?
How the hell does he know whether they want a backstop or not?
Try to follow the democratic chain?
If you cannot follow the democratic links in the chain from the people to the representative, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot comprehend, or even ascertain, the process by which the representative obtains his power, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot conceive of a possible democratic method by which the representative can be removed, censured or otherwise controlled by the electorate, IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
What is a Spanish worker supposed to do to replace Guy? Where should she start? Who does she protest to?
I've done this kind of research exercise many times with regard to the EU's democratic credentials.
I promise you the result is the same every single time.
Try it. Pick an EU bigwig and unravel where his/her power comes from.
And then try telling me the EU is democratic.
END
A Belgian chap has asked me to point out that I have over-simplified the Belgian electoral college. He has provided two links. I don't really understand them but am posting them for transparency sake.
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/results…
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/preferr
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
All I know is that I sent him an email and he personally replied, in detail. I hold him in much higher esteem that some of the tossers you pedal propaganda for
Agree with this 100%. Its disgraceful. They all continue with their entrenched views without even bothering to go into the detail. They should’ve had a test on implications and the withdrawal agreement before voting the other week.
As I’ve said a hundred times before (sorry for banging on) but if people want a compromised position, a slightly tweaked form of the withdrawal agreement is as good as we can get. It’s then up to us to agree a longer term trade agreement (probably a customs arrangement if the backstop issue cannot be resolved). If they want Remain or No Deal then they should feel free to stand their ground but by doing so they risk the opposite.
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
A good deal of global warming is attributable to the colossal amount of hot air from your mouth.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which reminds me Diane Abbott needs to be kept off Question Time for everyone’s sanity. Awful politician, not very bright and a PR disaster guaranteed. Which may be why the BBC keep having her on.
Just have Keir Starmer on for Labour until this shitstorm finally passes.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If you voted Brexit because of immigration you’re just wrong. As in, more wrong than Mark Robins bringing on Andreu on the left when 3-0 down at Fleetwood. And that was pretty wrong
Astute
Well-Known Member
And here we go again.......
Pro evidence and reason? Look at this thread for instance. Even if you put something up in black and white you get one person who makes out it isn't true and others then agree. Most of the rubbish comes from those desperate to remain. They defend those from the EU and those who are outspoken about staying in the EU but attack everyone else.
So about half of the UK is thick because they didn't vote the way you did? Or do you just mean they were misinformed? The thing is we were all misinformed. And we continue to get misinformed.
The worse thing is that many see a line. You are supposed to be one side of the line or the other. If you don't agree then you are thick. The only polls that I have seen that either side has the majority is YouGov. Yet they are supposed to be biased as they have the Tories in the lead. But if they say what you want them to say it is the truth. Pro evidence and reason?
So it is OK to call most of the UK thick? Because if you include those undecided there is no clear majority unless you look at those you say are wrong.
IMHO the best thing we can do is remain in the EU. But the worst thing that we can do is call everyone thick who doesn't agree.
'Yeah you may have won the first referendum but you are thick so it shouldn't count'
Can you imagine if we had voted remain and the shoe was in the other foot?
But of course I am wrong and biased because I don't agree with everything you say.
We can't have a once in a lifetime referendum and then totally ignore it.
So what should we do? Have another referendum where both sides lie again? Would it be best of 3? Best of 5? Keep voting until we get the remain result? Would a 0.2% majority Be enough to remain when a 3.8% majority to leave wasn't enough? Is calling everyone thick that doesn't agree with you the way forward?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
there is definitely mountains of shite to wade through to try and get an understanding of what's going on.
Otis
Well-Known Member
And that's just on here.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
On question time last week the people were saying their negotiation style was to stick 2 fingers up until the Eu come and give us what we want. Does this ever work? I understand as a dad, a really bad dad, I can order my children to do what I want and they will but if I do it too often and abuse their trust they’ll hate me and when they can choose they’ll tell me to get lost. But is it different in business? In trade negotiations? That’s even iif we had that power which I don’t think we do with the Eu trade area.
Also British values? What is it that makes us great? Is it not fairness, courage, bravery? Sense of fair play, standing against injustice, seeking the common good, looking out for those in need?
Great Britain doesn’t stand for bullying, taking things not ours, threatening, loud mouth, brash, something for nothing.
Or am I completely wrong and utterly naive?
I’m confused please help me
Also British values? What is it that makes us great? Is it not fairness, courage, bravery? Sense of fair play, standing against injustice, seeking the common good, looking out for those in need?
Great Britain doesn’t stand for bullying, taking things not ours, threatening, loud mouth, brash, something for nothing.
Or am I completely wrong and utterly naive?
I’m confused please help me
Last edited:
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
The country’s actions throughout history suggest that’s far from true.
The 2 finger approach is arrogance induced by a sense of self-importance, it’s embarrassing and not going to endear Britain to countries around the world.