Brexit thread 2 Electric Boogaloo

[Balinkay]

If the media were starting this thread they might ask a question like this: "Are the collectivist fascist mobs of the eurocrats trying to lead the great nation on a painful path to Germanic vassalage or are the racist bigots pulling for a backwards anachronistic form of nationalistic isolationism?".

I won't. Would love to hear the views of islanders about the situation some two and a half years after that faithful day.

Discuss!

[CCTV]

Apologies in advance Bali for my incoherent rambling: we can take it in steps or parts, it's a hard topic to break down imo.

Heres an interesting tedtalk (not beyond criticism themselves) on the subject of personality, liberals & conservatives with respect to moral authority from Jonathon Haidt.
It explains nicely a lot of politics today. He speaks very nicely to his audience, cause hes a public speaker of repute and as hes stated before in this era one has to speak very carefully to speak on campus.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
Given years ago the implications of such knowledge has been horribly overlooked in Brexit analysis and in the failed remain campaign and strategy.
The economic arguments from both sides are tenuous and pretty unreliable. If you are for remain or brexit it is very likely that the economic argument had very little hold on you over your affinity with your own personality/self.

Seen Stephen fry narrating some awful pieces on YouTube. He was surprised that those who lived in more diverse areas voted for remain and those who lived in more homogenous areas voted for Brexit. This however is to be expected in a view through lived personality.
Similarly remainers question how could people on benefits or less well paid refuse the status quo. They are the ones who have experienced the rise of financial inequality the most, why should they support a status quo that has furthered their poverty relative to others.

I predicted Brexit and trump elections correctly in the old thread in the off-topic based on such data and analysis.
Despite the polls suggesting there was little chance of it happening. Those who expected remain & Clinton were shocked as they do not understand the area properly imo. Plus journalism surely we can agree is at an all time low?

In time people will understand that remain & Clinton both lost out due to their own campaigning style and lack of understanding. Not only did they fail to convert those who didnt support them, they lost voters in their favour as a result.

That and the decline and death of traditional liberalism are largely to blame for the results. Theres a war in academia presently between those who are mandating reality versus those who are using science correctly to discover reality.

The attacks on little englanders are odd imo. The post ww2 era to the 1970s in terms of wealth distribution or levels of financial inequality is referred to as a golden age in the UK, this should be a liberal goal also. This is a good.

Since the 1970s, more so the 1980s onwards inequality is increasing steadily. The rise in inequality is synonymous with the rise in displaced persons and many more negative consequences, health and societal. The un provide such statistics on displaced persons and the growth rate of displaced persons is well above the global population growth rate. The book affluenza is based on the impacts on society of increased inequality. Its intuitive, fairer and more just societies are the best.

In little Britain a doctor was upper/elite class today 2 doctors (married couple) wouldn't qualify as elite/upper class.
People dont mind a measure of inequality where justifiable but they despise increasing inequality beyond a reasonable limit, everyone should. If you watched that video above you'll see it is one of the 2 common moral authorities imprinted in our nature.

It is odd that in liberal politics today freedom of speech and financial equality are contentious or controversial topics.

Inquality grows within and between nations. This is driving migration and displacement, outside of bombing civilian. If you want less migrants you need less inequality. If you do not want to stop migration, often taken as a last resort, continue with policies that promote inequality.
Analysis of economic policy shows that in the UK inequality has increased under every governemt in the UK over the last 4-5 decades.
Analysis of cuts and handouts from government policy disproportionately impact the poor, young & elderly most. In recession they experience the brunt of cuts the most. In boom or recovery they get the least. Analysis of wealth distribution post the crash shows that pretty much all the economic growth has benefited the top 1%. A fraction of the top1% account for almost all of the economic recovery since the 08/09 crash.
There is a global policy where the only difference between continents is the extent of increaes in inequality and the wealth distribution is starting to look feudal.

I'd have voted brexit on principles. I wouldn't have voted in the USA election.
I do think both results will bring huge progress to our western world. Liberalism might be returned to where it belongs as a consistent philosophy based on principles.

What has Europe become?
Since the inception of the euro which was an ideological desire and not a practical one weve seen power consolidated in Germany. Merkel's is Europe. The euro has benefited Germany the most and has a large part to play in the banking crisis. The policy of the euro has seen ardent capitalist critique the madness of allowing bank debt to be nationalised.
In Ireland we took a hit the Greeks even more. Then the eu called Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain the pigs.

Weve seen the eu criticise China for moving in on "its" fishing territories in Africa. They criticise China for paying the poorest more and giving them a better deal. That sums up Europe and global liberalism today imo. Europe will mandate you pay sky and bt for competition purposes, despise the Chinese for providing it in Africa.

Europe has been far more concerned about Brexit than any violations of international law, like Tony Blair and the fabricated dossiers as concluded by the chilcot report.

The eu is for peace and prosperity, look who they sell arms too. It's not consistent at all. War has been exported out of the region by and large.

If Britain leaves the EU, which is not certain the eu has a great record of overturning elections which go against the institutes desires, then it will certainly be a massive loss. The big fear for the EU is that others join them.

[dicko1969]

Questions

1. Why did London, Scotland, Liverpool all vote to remain?

2. Farage lied concerning NHS and immigration.

3. How many uk MEPs are there, and which party has the most?

4. What does Europe stand for?

5. What does the UK pay for Europe , but gain from being in the European Union?

6. How can you offer a referendum to the people on such a complex issue?

[Balinkay]

Awesome CC! This is exactly what I was looking for. I really want to see what went on how to understand this weird situation.

Alright. That video by Heidt is ver entertaining - I've been lucky enough to have been exposed to these ideas of the possible absurdity of moral self righteousness when it comes to politics and history, but I've seldom seen someone put it as well as Heidt has here. I've not seen much of him, but what I have seen has been good. The idea that you should listen to your political adversaries and seek the common ground rather than the differences is painfully lost. Have had a few discussions with fellow students (I'm obviously quite young, probably even in comparison to you) on such matters. I also get the same feeling that the economic issues of the referendum didn't play much of a role in anyone's mind when voting, though that remains to be proven. As outside observers, I'm sure we could both benefit from the views of someone who actually voted for it. *AHEM* YOU ENGLISH SLOUCHES.

I don't quite understand your next point about Fry - Maybe what he meant was that those in homogenous areas had no reason to fear immigration since it had not come to them in the forty years the UK's been in the EU?

In general I'd like to hear a bit more about your views on financial inequality. I don't think financial inequality in and of itself is an issue - poverty is. I think you're kind of mixing up the two things with your family of doctors example - surely the issue isn't that there's someone 1 000 000 times richer than them but that they can't afford a decent life while (as I'm sure we'll all agree) both doing more than enough to earn it? Could you also tell me a little more about what "little England / Britain" means? I've heard the term many times, but never quite understood it. I'd also be interested to hear what you mean by "traditional liberalism". In particular I can't really understand what you mean by this paragraph:


The attacks on little englanders are odd imo. The post ww2 era to the 1970s in terms of wealth distribution or levels of financial inequality is referred to as a golden age in the UK, this should be a liberal goal also. This is a good.

Should even wealth distribution be a liberal goal? And why is it good?

This might provide an interesting avenue of discussion as well:


It is odd that in liberal politics today freedom of speech and financial equality are contentious or controversial topics.

Are they? Also define "liberal". I think my understanding of the term might be polluted by the US's monopoly on my media intake. :D

Next you talk about the growing wealth inequality (which as stated, I don't view as morally reprehensible in and of it self) around the world and the state mandated policies which are designed to keep international inequality on the rise. Could you elaborate? Isn't this just every country looking out for its national interest and trying to make its own situation as good as possible?

The final paragraphs I frankly don't know too much about. What I will say is that if you're looking for a government that has no dirty secrets you will find none. Even the most righteous historic figures often end up having done some reprehensible things - look at the like of mother Theresa. Isn't there even a bit of a debate about Churchill's legacy going on in the UK nowadays? I'm not sure what you mean that the war has been exported out of the region?

Furthermore, even if power is being consolidated in Germany, I wouldn't call that the worst thing in the world (without discussing the situation more concretely of course), but I am a self-confessed germanophile after all. :D What can I say, I like it here!

And yes, the EU is not on stable footing. Interesting times we live in. Would be inconvenient for me if it falls apart, but hey-ho, shite happens. :D

[Balinkay]

@dicko

That last question interests me a lot as well. It's a moronic decision imo to give this vote to the people. From the outside it looked like a cheap power play from the prime minister who thought he'd get some political capital from it. Coincidentally I had the exact same feeling about Farage, Gove and Johnson's involvement in the whole deal. Seemed like neither of them expected or indeed wanted Brexit - they were just looking to gain political capital. Again, I don't follow UK politics too closely, so this might be complete bollocks, but that's what it looked like to me and some others here across La Manche.

[dicko1969]

Thorn in the Side Ltd, of which Farage is the sole director, had assets of £548,573 for the year to May 2018 – a substantial jump from assets of just over £157,000 recorded for the previous year.

The disclosure comes as Farage was chided on Wednesday by the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, while the parliament debated the current Brexit turmoil.

Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company.

The irony

[dicko1969]

The European union's purpose is to promote:

peace, establish a unified economic and monetary system, promote inclusion and combat discrimination, break down barriers to trade and borders, encourage technological and scientific developments, champion environmental protection, and, among others, promote goals like a competitive global market and social progress.

Sounds like a good idea in principle.

[Balinkay]

He's putting his money into an offshore account so he doesn't pay taxes? Is that illegal?

[dicko1969]

The MEP has previously admitted setting up a trust fund in an offshore tax haven that could have enabled him to cut his tax bill. Farage, who condemned tax avoiders in a speech to the European parliament, said in 2013 that he paid a tax adviser to set up the Farage Family Educational Trust 1654 in the Isle of Man.

On leaving , MEP with 20 years 'service' will get near 170k€ pay out.

[dicko1969]

Question

1. Europe undemocratic?

2. When are the European elections?

3. What's the turnout %?

[dicko1969]

Anyone know the cost of Brexit, in terms of time, debating, referendum etc?


Could have been used on schools and hospitals

[CCTV]

He's putting his money into an offshore account so he doesn't pay taxes? Is that illegal?

No, it's what most rich people do when they can. We had BONO the worlds biggest shit (southpark) go round campaigning for 0.7% of GDP be given to developing poorer nations.
Then he registered in Holland for tax purposes to ensure the developed world got as little of his money as possible.

It drives me mad this new left leaning tech companies. Google et al, they avoid taxes at every turn, taxes which provide services and sit on billions of cash reserves idling away and somehow get the left leaning tag. While apple and a few others have had to take measures to reduce suicides in the workplace in China. Believe iirc the installed nets :D such a bleeding heart liberal response eh.

[CCTV]

Anyone know the cost of Brexit, in terms of time, debating, referendum etc?


Could have been used on schools and hospitals

A fraction of the wars in Iraq. Where 1 million Brits marched in opposition of the war setting a precedent in anti-war protests prior to the commencement of war. Sadly this spirit died away very quickly.
I'd guarantee you Brexit is of more concern to the heads of state across Europe than the destabilisation of an entire geopolitical region.

[Balinkay]

I've heard the net stories about China too. Gruesome stuff.

I think the left leaning tag comes from their policies on content - for example of 22 examined major bans on twitter in a roughly two year period somewhere in the middle of this decade 21 were right leaning. Don't quote me on those stats but I heard them on the web so they must be true. :D

Also most of their employees are left leaning, just the ones who deal with money and actually make the company function financially probably aren't. When things are going well for you, you don't tend to ask too many questions as you might have to face the fact you're a bit of a cunt for not paying taxes through a shitty legal loophole.

[Balinkay]

A fraction of the wars in Iraq. Where 1 million Brits marched in opposition of the war setting a precedent in anti-war protests prior to the commencement of war. Sadly this spirit died away very quickly.
I'd guarantee you Brexit is of more concern to the heads of state across Europe than the destabilisation of an entire geopolitical region.

Devil's advocate here, but isn't that normal in politics? If you own house is on fire you don't really care that your neighbour's got some serious issues.

[CCTV]

Thorn in the Side Ltd, of which Farage is the sole director, had assets of £548,573 for the year to May 2018 – a substantial jump from assets of just over £157,000 recorded for the previous year.

The disclosure comes as Farage was chided on Wednesday by the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, while the parliament debated the current Brexit turmoil.

Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company.

The irony

Not here to defend politicians they're a scummy lot certainly a disgrace to the shoulders they stand on today imo.

Tony Blair is a multimillionaire with an extensive property portfolio, key note speaker for corporations commanding a hefty fee, all while considering the working class and dropping freedom bombs on Iraq after the evidence was concluded to he a fabrication for all intensive purposes.

Contributions to the Clinton foundation charity dropped instantaneously as soon as she was out the doors of power. They're going to trump now.

[CCTV]

The European union's purpose is to promote:

peace, establish a unified economic and monetary system, promote inclusion and combat discrimination, break down barriers to trade and borders, encourage technological and scientific developments, champion environmental protection, and, among others, promote goals like a competitive global market and social progress.

Sounds like a good idea in principle.

If you put 10,000 grand in my back account I will reimburse you with a million pound after I become prince of yousuckerstan :)

Sounds great in principle also.

[Balinkay]

To be fair CCTV, I think for a large portion of its young people the EU has achieved a number of those things.

There's not been a war between EU countries since its inception, France and Germany are basically married now instead of each other's throats and the union has made it a lot easier to live, study and travel abroad. I've also heard it's pretty good for science.

[dicko1969]

A lot of governments are trying to uncover tax dodging.

So many live in Monaco for example.
Why should they pay in countries that badly manage resources.

I believe in Denmark they pay one of the highest amount of taxes. +50%.
Why? because the see the benefits of their taxes. Services, schools, and so on.

Talking globally we are near 8 billion people on the planet. 1960 we were 3 billion.
The future predict between 3 billion and 24 billion by 2100.

Iraq war. Sure not a great thing. I think President of France Jacques Chirac was one of few western leaders to oppose this. Of which the Americans resorted to "French bashing". Even French fries were renamed.

Back on topic. Even Mrs Thatcher Saud it's better to be in Europe. Because at least you have a place at the table to debate, and make a difference to our local partners.

[dicko1969]

Countries such as your Ireland have got richer. 6th in the world.

Czech republic has improved vastly.
Due to Europe.

[CCTV]

Awesome CC! This is exactly what I was looking for. I really want to see what went on how to understand this weird situation.

Alright. That video by Heidt is ver entertaining - I've been lucky enough to have been exposed to these ideas of the possible absurdity of moral self righteousness when it comes to politics and history, but I've seldom seen someone put it as well as Heidt has here. I've not seen much of him, but what I have seen has been good. The idea that you should listen to your political adversaries and seek the common ground rather than the differences is painfully lost. Have had a few discussions with fellow students (I'm obviously quite young, probably even in comparison to you) on such matters. I also get the same feeling that the economic issues of the referendum didn't play much of a role in anyone's mind when voting, though that remains to be proven. As outside observers, I'm sure we could both benefit from the views of someone who actually voted for it. *AHEM* YOU ENGLISH SLOUCHES.

I don't quite understand your next point about Fry - Maybe what he meant was that those in homogenous areas had no reason to fear immigration since it had not come to them in the forty years the UK's been in the EU?

In general I'd like to hear a bit more about your views on financial inequality. I don't think financial inequality in and of itself is an issue - poverty is. I think you're kind of mixing up the two things with your family of doctors example - surely the issue isn't that there's someone 1 000 000 times richer than them but that they can't afford a decent life while (as I'm sure we'll all agree) both doing more than enough to earn it? Could you also tell me a little more about what "little England / Britain" means? I've heard the term many times, but never quite understood it. I'd also be interested to hear what you mean by "traditional liberalism". In particular I can't really understand what you mean by this paragraph:



Should even wealth distribution be a liberal goal? And why is it good?

This might provide an interesting avenue of discussion as well:



Are they? Also define "liberal". I think my understanding of the term might be polluted by the US's monopoly on my media intake. :D

Next you talk about the growing wealth inequality (which as stated, I don't view as morally reprehensible in and of it self) around the world and the state mandated policies which are designed to keep international inequality on the rise. Could you elaborate? Isn't this just every country looking out for its national interest and trying to make its own situation as good as possible?

The final paragraphs I frankly don't know too much about. What I will say is that if you're looking for a government that has no dirty secrets you will find none. Even the most righteous historic figures often end up having done some reprehensible things - look at the like of mother Theresa. Isn't there even a bit of a debate about Churchill's legacy going on in the UK nowadays? I'm not sure what you mean that the war has been exported out of the region?

Furthermore, even if power is being consolidated in Germany, I wouldn't call that the worst thing in the world (without discussing the situation more concretely of course), but I am a self-confessed germanophile after all. :D What can I say, I like it here!

And yes, the EU is not on stable footing. Interesting times we live in. Would be inconvenient for me if it falls apart, but hey-ho, shite happens. :D

Ok, quickly answering...

Little Britain is a comedy , the idea in terms of Brexit is the British want to go back to some golden age that is deemed a dream or fantasy by remainers, the little englanders same type of term. This era has a golden era in terms of wealth distribution, which returning to seems fanciful and undeliverable by their opponents, yet you will not find a remainer really who opposes this principle. Fry as an example acknowledges this need, the problem is it only came to the fore really after Brexit. A bit late for them to have cake.
The global trends all point toward increasing inequality.
Mark Blythe has some good pieces on this issue globally

Haidt is good there are a few more challenging dogmatic/unfounded teaching with no basis in reality or science. Pinker writes about how people blame the idea of culture or environment when in fact they undermine the real genetic components involved also.
As per haidts intentions I believe what he is trying to instill in society and its present in his other pieces is that the left/liberals like to call the right/conservatives racist, ignorant and stupid. This is because they have a different basis on the moral authorities or value sets. This is criminal to conflate difference with negative connotations. Its practically like shaming a gay cause they are wired differently and saying why cant you just be straight.

For example if you want to minimise migration, which is driven by inequality, you are racist.
Truth is liberals do not share the values of conservatives and conflate what appeals to them with racism. Say you oppose the projected demographics of Britain and the point where typically English or native people become a minority against others. You want to keep Britain british it does not follow you are racist. It's a very difficult concept for remainers. It doesnt mean you hate people, it's a preference for maintaining a traditional order.

On fry his expected results was that where there is more diversity thered be more problems with it. And vice versa. This was not found which shows he had a poor understanding as his prediction was very wrong. Using a personality as lived model (in my head but fits with literature) you would expect people who wouldn't like to live in more diverse regions to not live in them. They voted Brexit because they like the idea of retaining/protecting quaintly British regions.
It wasnt a problem with foreigners as he presumed, it was a problem of retaining traditionally British regions within Britain. Migration of course can be a challenge, see demographic projections, on this front but it is not due to a problem with foreigners or hatred.

Abject poverty is most definitely an area where we have improved. But what you are not getting is the role of inequality in the health of a society. If you look at abject poverty on a global scale the west doesnt have abject poverty by and large. There are few Brits living on a dollar a day or less.
The thing about inequality is that it is very much a factor within a society and between the worlds as defined 1st 2nd & 3rd.

To put it this way. The world most certainly has never seen this amount of material wealth. About 200-300 years ago the entire world practically speaking was in abject poverty by today's standards. These strides cannot be discounted as progress.
For most of englands domination of Ireland say, the average brit lived in poverty and the spoils went to the rich. The Brits had it better than most but the idea your average brit partied off imperialism is a bit redundant. Jaysus H Christ I'm sliding off topic here.

What is financial inequality. It is the measure of difference between the top and bottom in society. In the developed world USA wins this contest and Britain is pretty close. You could have no abject poverty in the UK. But with large inequality countries you can see the differences with low inequality countries whereby theres a wealth of health, child, crime, societal like trust, statistics that correlate well with the thesis.

The more unequal a society is financially the more negative consequences for it's people, even the rich. This is where the morality of the most basic basic commonly shared authority demands actions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
A brief introduction again Tedtalk.

Liberals tend to vote labour/Democrat
Conservatives tend to vote Republican.
You'll have to look into this one yourself as it is a bit beyond me to surmise in any meaningful way bar the above. Theres a bit of philosophy but the 2 terms in most cases are practically interchangeable ie liberal/labour conservative/tory

It doesnt matter where you are tbh. The problem is a global political-economic one so everyone's in it.
Here in Ireland for example having looked at research before by people who I'd say are honest there really would be no difference to us within or outside of Europe.
However the public perception would be miles away from this reality. The idea here would be we are proud Europeans - having been shafted by the euro and German banks.
The fear of people would be based on our somewhat terrible dependency on washing corporate money through our economy. We reduced our corporate tax rate to 12.5%, now America and the UK are proposing a 15% rate- we started this rst race. We attracted many left-leaning tech giants who hate paying taxes and sit on hundreds of billions of idle cash. Think 1 in every 6 euro we generate here is from corporate tax which isn't anywhere near the 12.5% rate but its significant in terms of its contribution to our exchequer. They've a way of filtering money through Ireland for money that is not really generated here and our government kind of turns a blind eye.

The good little Europeans that we are, we never take on Europe. Our politicians through wikileaks cables releases showed they had no intentions of fulfilling election pledges. So despite campaigning on not paying these bank debts they cowered under duress as they had intended while lying.
But when Europe said we had to collect 13billion from apple I taxes due, we rose against Europe and appealed this decision. Shows where interest are today.
Lump bank debt on the tax bill, ok they made us.
Collect 13 billion from apple, no way.

The idea here is we really are a Basket case and couldn't upset the applecart. But realistically such dependency ideation is rather unjustified.

The problem of tax avoidance isn't confined to Ireland. The UK and Dutch are far bigger problems within the eu.

I might have to rejig bits later if not clear

[CCTV]

I'll have to check the abject poverty in the USA and UK later. They might not be living on a dollar a day but I think there are a good few who do live on its equivalency when you balance for exchange rates and costs of goods.
No doubt there are people living in the misery of poverty in the UK and USA.

Even if they were not in poverty, if the ratio/gaps to the richest are bigger than in other countries then the principle effect would still come through.
Poverty is about materials.
Inequality is about justice/fairness.

Ideally you want to eliminate poverty, maintaining a healthy level of inequality.
People tend to be on with doctors say getting a wage reflective of their duties.
Our problem is we have increased the inequality to an unacceptable level.

[CCTV]

Devil's advocate here, but isn't that normal in politics? If you own house is on fire you don't really care that your neighbour's got some serious issues.

Into today's politics. Money has taken over the political sphere, before it was not this way.

[Balinkay]

Without going into too much depth, I still don't understand the inequality thing. Why is it bad if you have it okay but your neighbour has it a million times better? And what constitutes a "fair" distribution of money? What objective practically applicable function can be used to justify that?

[Balinkay]

Into today's politics. Money has taken over the political sphere, before it was not this way.

Meh, politics has always been a dirty business. If it wasn't money it was power. The nature of the profession. It's a necessary evil.

[CCTV]

I've heard the net stories about China too. Gruesome stuff.

I think the left leaning tag comes from their policies on content - for example of 22 examined major bans on twitter in a roughly two year period somewhere in the middle of this decade 21 were right leaning. Don't quote me on those stats but I heard them on the web so they must be true. :D

Also most of their employees are left leaning, just the ones who deal with money and actually make the company function financially probably aren't. When things are going well for you, you don't tend to ask too many questions as you might have to face the fact you're a bit of a cunt for not paying taxes through a shitty legal loophole.

Look up James Damore if you are not familiar with his case. Vilified for his presentation of facts which no credible scientist would dispute. It doesnt fit with the ideology or desires and he got sacked.

I think they are called left leaning because they support abortion, lgbtq rights, oppose religion and faith. They are what I'd term socially left but have very extreme right wing views on supporting services.

If you look up Amazon? Jeff Bezos he gets the state to subsidise his workers. So they're alright with taking from the state services.

[CCTV]

Without going into too much depth, I still don't understand the inequality thing. Why is it bad if you have it okay but your neighbour has it a million times better? And what constitutes a "fair" distribution of money? What objective practically applicable function can be used to justify that?

16 minutes of YouTube will point you towards the answers you are looking for.
I think after watching it you might understand the principle better.

There are no clear objective answers. Only looking at what exists today and what consequences are associated with it.

A rough explanation.
Denmark is pretty good on it.
The uk/Ireland/France twice as bad.
USA twice as bad as these 3.

Association on mental and physical health conditions.

Denmark has a score across all health conditions.
Uk/Ireland/France say average twice as many conditions
USA 4 times as much

Reducing inequality reduces a whole host of negative outcomes in a society.

On a global scale it drives the incentive to migrate up as there countries while richer now than before are relatively poorer.

[dicko1969]

Bezzos is 50% less wealthy these days after his own personal divorce.

[dicko1969]

Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States.

while the bottom 90% held 73.2% of all debt

[dicko1969]

There are two billion fellow human beings who live on less than two dollars a day. And the richest people over there -- there's one billion people -- and they live above what I call the "air line," because they spend more than $80 a day on their consumption.

[dicko1969]

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine/transcript?language=en#t-152051

Hans lovely fella. Rip

[dicko1969]

Ireland - $69,231.
Netherlands - $51,049.
Sweden - $49,836.
Iceland - $49,136.
Germany - $48,111
Austria - $48,005.

What created Ireland's wealth?

EU

[dicko1969]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_and_social_rankings_of_sovereign_states_ in_Europe

Here you can see in terms of GDP and per capita etc

[CCTV]

Meh, politics has always been a dirty business. If it wasn't money it was power. The nature of the profession. It's a necessary evil.

True, most human affairs including science have this charge too.
I think after ww2 there were sincere attempts at politics. But that has been lost since.

[CCTV]

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine/transcript?language=en#t-152051

Hans lovely fella. Rip

Hes pretty cool alright , not sure if I've seen this one.

[dicko1969]

Also
Public debt in terms of % GDP
Unemployment
Average wage

Europe is far from being poor

Think about the politics , economics, migration... this is a very long story.

Hours to debate. So much to cover. Historically, Present and Future

[dicko1969]

Hes pretty cool alright , not sure if I've seen this one.

Magic washing machine
And the incredible stats the other

Lots of great interesting videos on Ted

Jamie Oliver... obesity
And Mike Biddle ..... about plastics
Elon Musk and travel under the city

https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_biddle/up-next

Oh and Google driverless car... x2

[dicko1969]

Banks and Greece.

Bailout
Why... because Greeks avoid paying taxes. Over 30 years avoidance.

What happens if a whole country avoids paying taxes... straight forward .. bankruptcy

[dicko1969]

Czech republic.

One of the first countries to benefit from countries like france of outsourcing.

Production in France over 25€ an hour.
In the past Czech republic dirt cheap.

So move production units to Czech republic, Poland, Romania.

Now of course China.

Jobs lost / Jobs gained elsewhere
Poorer European countries become richer, easier for companies to start up business there.

Cheaper products.
More profits for multinationals... globals

[dicko1969]

One thing that has always made me laugh... ironically of course.

People coming into the UK are immigrants.

Yet uk / Brits living abroad are ex pats!

Hum how does that work?

Nothing more annoying than ze English asking " do you speak English?" when abroad.

Fuck off speak their language!!

https://youtu.be/rxUm-2x-2dM

[CCTV]

To be fair CCTV, I think for a large portion of its young people the EU has achieved a number of those things.

There's not been a war between EU countries since its inception, France and Germany are basically married now instead of each other's throats and the union has made it a lot easier to live, study and travel abroad. I've also heard it's pretty good for science.

The trauma of ww2 played a big part. There are a few years of a void without war for example iirc.

War and arms have been exported outside of the region. Theres not a single country that's had a terrorist attack in Europe without having had military intervention abroad.

I'd also argue that the us in terms of a militarily dominant force has played a part in maintaining peace in Europe. Our armies know that a conflict were it to occur would be wiped out against the United states. They've warmongered for sure but they did intervene in Kosovo.

I dont think the argument is robust enough that the eu is essential or necessary for maintaining peace. For example if trade of goods was so important why would they be provoking Britain a nuclear power with tough trade terms.

Also on science, re global warming the yanks have the same carbon footprint as 10,000,000,000 3rd world persons. We are similar with a bigger population and slightly less of a carbon footprint per person.
Whites make up about 12% of the global population and contribute a carbon footprint equal to 20,000,000,000 3rd world persons. It would seem a rather unethical standard for the scientific community to stand over in principle and global wealth terms a 55% share resides in Europe and USA.

We're getting into big areas now though of discussion. I find it odd how we love science produces, like smokers ,but seem unaware of the related effects on health.

Over here we had the Atlantic documentary, very nice cinematography, which shows a terrible management of our finishing stocks. Flat fish have been shown to be a very useful tool in combating climate change and acidity in the ocean but very poor management of the resource.
Similarly a shell to sea documentary showed an estuary protected by EU law and it was illegal for you or I to move one shovel of sand in it, so as to protect salmon stocks.
Shell come in and get permission to dig a 9m? Trench to run a pipe through it. Envrionemental protection meets corporate interests. EU says go for it.

[dicko1969]

Next up

Demographics

Now in the 1970s I'm guessing 2.4 children per family in Blighty.

Recent times , you'll need to check, as low as 1.2 children.

Ageing population, baby boomers, just after the war , living longer putting extreme strains on nhs, services, and so on.

Coupled with the fact that to be a university graduate you need £45k+ to become a nurse, doctor, and so on.

So where do you get the qualified people.

Elsewhere.

Britain needs migration. Always has always will. And especiallywith the above stats.

[CCTV]

Countries such as your Ireland have got richer. 6th in the world.

Czech republic has improved vastly.
Due to Europe.

Reducing our corporate tax rate played it's part. The eu played it part and the peace process played a huge part imo. FDI from the states. We produce lots of pharmaceuticals. Tourism and I'd wager our 80million Americans who claim to be Irish had a part too. 1 in 6 euros comes from corporate tax money being filtered through here iirc today.

It's a big question you're asking. Inflation plays a part, when I was 16 a house was maybe 30,000 when I was 25 twas 300,000. Same house, different property bubble.
We too though have become a more unequal society in terms of financial inequality.

[dicko1969]

Britain population has grown

Year 2000 approx 59million
Year 2018 approx 69million

10 million more people
Net migration 1.5 million

So a crude calculation means the baby boomers and ageing population make up 8.5 million extra people in the UK

[CCTV]

Next up

Demographics

Now in the 1970s I'm guessing 2.4 children per family in Blighty.

Recent times , you'll need to check, as low as 1.2 children.

Ageing population, baby boomers, just after the war , living longer putting extreme strains on nhs, services, and so on.

Coupled with the fact that to be a university graduate you need £45k+ to become a nurse, doctor, and so on.

So where do you get the qualified people.

Elsewhere.

Britain needs migration. Always has always will. And especiallywith the above stats.

A means to an end. Interesting perspective on outsourcing and very true imo.

I saw a remain campaigner talking about how they needed foreigners to fill the NHS. Especially in home help. A 'native' woman in this area was talking about the lack of Brits willing to do these jobs.
The pay and work conditions are not good enough to entice Brits to care for vulnerable people. Another consequence of widening inequality, despite how empathetic people profess themselves to be on social media, there are declining levels of actual empathy per college graduate generation.
Narcissism rises and empathy declines with widening inequality gaps.

I've blurred as much as I can for today.

[dicko1969]

Are house prices CCTV

Another point
I remember in the early 2000 people in the UK saying my house worth this or worth that.

It only has better value if you trade your house for another in Bulgaria.

Who benefits from this? Banks. Plain and simple. Banks lend more money you pay more interest.

Second London, half is owned by China.

What I mean here is it is a bit like owning a football club Mr Abramovic . Sure value. Healthy market.

This creates a false, unfair market.

Similarly many tourists, Brits coming to Spain or France overinflated house prices for the local people. They couldn't afford and got driven out of their towns.

[dicko1969]

A means to an end. Interesting perspective on outsourcing and very true imo.

I saw a remain campaigner talking about how they needed foreigners to fill the NHS. Especially in home help. A 'native' woman in this area was talking about the lack of Brits willing to do these jobs.
The pay and work conditions are not good enough to entice Brits to care for vulnerable people. Another consequence of widening inequality, despite how empathetic people profess themselves to be on social media, there are declining levels of actual empathy per college graduate generation.
Narcissism rises and empathy declines with widening inequality gaps.

I've blurred as much as I can for today.

Yep another valid point.
This is the case in other wealthy European countries.
Immigrants (I hate this term) taking our jobs. Bullshit , people too lazy to work.

The average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime.

Overall, the future net contribution of 2016 arrivals alone to the UK public finances is estimated at £25bn.

Had there been no immigration at all in 2016, the rest of us would have had, over time, to find £25bn, through higher taxes, public service cuts, or higher borrowing.

[Balinkay]

Ok, CC. Gave the inequality video a watch. Very enlightening. Actually remembered I might have seen it years ago. Some points smell somewhat fishy and it's TED, so I automatically approach it with a pinch of salt, but it was very informative. Cheers!

Think it shows pretty clearly that countries with a large healthy and wealthy middle class (not as in rich, which is what I think that means in England, but as in "in the middle"), such as Germany and Denmark do well.

[ianlfc]

The bigger question I want to know is , who are the fucking headers who stand outside the houses of parliament protesting and shouting at reporters ?

[Aldo1988]

The biggest question is who is going to do all the jobs the 'immigrants' did that the lazy dole dwelling wouldnt do?

[Balinkay]

The bigger question I want to know is , who are the fucking headers who stand outside the houses of parliament protesting and shouting at reporters ?

Isn't it people who're annoyed that "No deal" was basically taken off the table as an option.

[dicko1969]

Next up ...

29th of March is d-day

EU want UK out. No extension

[CCTV]

Ok, CC. Gave the inequality video a watch. Very enlightening. Actually remembered I might have seen it years ago. Some points smell somewhat fishy and it's TED, so I automatically approach it with a pinch of salt, but it was very informative. Cheers!

Think it shows pretty clearly that countries with a large healthy and wealthy middle class (not as in rich, which is what I think that means in England, but as in "in the middle"), such as Germany and Denmark do well.

Should be intuitive unless you've lost 1 of the 2 common moral channels !

[Balinkay]

It is, of course. Like I said, in hypothetical scenarios where everyone makes 10 dollars a year and one where 80% make 1000 and 20% make 10000000, I know which one I'd pick. I'm not sure battling income inequality necessitates hating rich people, but rather helping poor ones. In the end of the day, the inequality will decrease either way.

Obviously I'm a fan of a large middle class, I live in a place which is stereotypically known for it!

[Mike Lad]

6. How can you offer a referendum to the people on such a complex issue?
Late to this party but I find this question to be one of the most pertinent.

It was an enormous risk and one that Cameron massively underestimated. Staggering that the Tories are still in power.

If you simplify and polarise every bastard thing then you're going to end up with a confused mess like this. People are firmly in their camps now because they've been encouraged to be tribal about it. It's a tired comparison to draw but it's happened in the US with Trump. Having two options for issues as complex as this, with ramifications as high as this, is fucking mental in my opinion.

[Mike Lad]

Bal, I really do still plan on getting back to you re this whole thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you were mainly interested in how the UK benefits economically from being in the EU? I know it was fucking ages ago. Sorry.

[Balinkay]

No worries mate, good things come to those who wait.

Yes, that was what interested me most. Would like to know how the impasse in Ireland could be solved too, since at the time I didn't know it was quite as big a deal as it is.

[Mike Lad]

at the time I didn't know it was quite as big a deal
Don't feel bad, pretty sure most of the MPs didn't either.

[CCTV]

It is, of course. Like I said, in hypothetical scenarios where everyone makes 10 dollars a year and one where 80% make 1000 and 20% make 10000000, I know which one I'd pick. I'm not sure battling income inequality necessitates hating rich people, but rather helping poor ones. In the end of the day, the inequality will decrease either way.

Obviously I'm a fan of a large middle class, I live in a place which is stereotypically known for it!

I think you are still getting this wrong. Your proposing the situation if I read you right as misleading. Income inequality attached to 10$ a year and not with $1000 and a mill.
Heres a video from Mark Blythe where he touches on a lot of the issues. Even showing how the post ww2 to 1970s era was synonymous with the golden age of income equality and how it created the middle class. Seems you're opposing it due to a preference for a large middle class which it actually created. Hits on dickos Czech republic too and the state of the euro currency with its consequences in an interactive sense. Also detailing the switch in aims from full employment as a goal say to where we are now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A

It's not about hating the rich, it's about having more equality in the society/system. It benefits the rich too, see Denmark et al where they have lower crime rates.
The rich though and there are billionaires who are currently saying that without addressing the inequality the rich will end up being hated and historically they then get attacked.

Again on your 2 systems redistributing wealth this video shows the 2 systems at play. The golden age of wealth distribution and the rise of the middle classes, versus the age of inequality and the squeezed middle.
Pretty mad how many liberals are so attached to Regan/Thatcher and now beat on the unemployed.

[CCTV]

Yep another valid point.
This is the case in other wealthy European countries.
Immigrants (I hate this term) taking our jobs. Bullshit , people too lazy to work.

The average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime.

Overall, the future net contribution of 2016 arrivals alone to the UK public finances is estimated at £25bn.

Had there been no immigration at all in 2016, the rest of us would have had, over time, to find £25bn, through higher taxes, public service cuts, or higher borrowing.

I reckon you should watch this video too, it's long but hits a lot of topics and saves me paraphrasing it badly ;)
It shows how the switch to Regan/Thatcher policies have impacted on policy, no longer aiming for full employment, stagnant wages etc.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A

[CCTV]

The fear about a post Brexit seems to be that the Tories will do this and that, though this and that has been the effect of being in the eu.
Lets not leave the eu as the things that have happened since we joined the eu might happen after we leave it, from a workers and investment perspective.

[Mike Lad]

The fear about a post Brexit seems to be that the Tories will do this and that, though this and that has been the effect of being in the eu.
By 'this and that' do you mean completely sacking off the environment and human rights?

The EU is a sobering influence on our policy, which has a very "fuck the world and all the workers in it" vibe.

[CCTV]

By 'this and that' do you mean completely sacking off the environment and human rights?

The EU is a sobering influence on our policy, which has a very "fuck the world and all the workers in it" vibe.

Meant more like stagnant wages and a sharp decline in infrastructural investment as its measured.

The environment is a big topic to discuss, I'm willing but not now, time.

Not sure how human rights will be affected by leaving the UK. Who are they going to attack ? the good for nothing unemployed identified by remainers in this thread ?

[Balinkay]

Might give it a watch CC. Not a huge fan of this communication through videos though, I must say. :D

[Balinkay]

Meant more like stagnant wages and a sharp decline in infrastructural investment as its measured.

The environment is a big topic to discuss, I'm willing but not now, time.

Not sure how human rights will be affected by leaving the UK. Who are they going to attack ? the good for nothing unemployed identified by remainers in this thread ?

Could you point them out?

[CCTV]

Immigrants (I hate this term) taking our jobs. Bullshit , people too lazy to work.


The biggest question is who is going to do all the jobs the 'immigrants' did that the lazy dole dwelling wouldnt do?


Could you point them out?

Sure, these are the 2 posters/posts i was referring to

[CCTV]

Might give it a watch CC. Not a huge fan of this communication through videos though, I must say. :D

Well you could read all of his work if you prefer, think video is like the new printing press.

[CCTV]

@ Bali , do you know which human rights Mike-lad was referring to ?

[Balinkay]

Sure, these are the 2 posters/posts i was referring to

Cheers. Can kind of see what you mean.

Mayhaps they'd like to elaborate?

@dicko @Aldo

[Balinkay]

Well you could read all of his work if you prefer, think video is like the new printing press.

You're very much right imo. Makes for a poor conversation is all. :D


@ Bali , do you know which human rights Mike-lad was referring to ?

Not sure. I do know the EU has some regulations on the number of hours you get to work, conditions, how much you must rest. As a student for example you're not allowed to work more than 20 hours a week (in general) here in Krautland. Maybe something like that?

[Mike Lad]

Not sure how human rights will be affected by leaving the UK
MPs voted against retaining the European Charter of Fundamental Rights after we leave, so that's one potential way.

Obviously, no one knows for sure how or even if they will be affected. But I'm inclined to believe that people's concerns about the Tories doing 'this or that' without the EU's influence are valid.

[CCTV]

MPs voted against retaining the European Charter of Fundamental Rights after we leave, so that's one potential way.

Obviously, no one knows for sure how or even if they will be affected. But I'm inclined to believe that people's concerns about the Tories doing 'this or that' without the EU's influence are valid.

I'm not sure I follow you here Mike as there's little indication of what and where you see such concerns arising based on precedent

On this issue I believe most if not all will be retained.

Where eu rulings have been contested, where I've seen them, they tend to be very sensible.

The 2 examples that come to my mind, if I have you right in the first place, are fishing and pedophilia.

On fishing, see Atlantic way, I'd say the contesting is rather justified. With an interest in protecting fishing stocks from an environmental perspective. While usually looking at say loopholes companies use.
Each country gets quotas, in our territory many are fishing their quotas here and often go to poorer nations like Latvia and register their companies there and then continue to fish even more fish out of our stocks under a different nations flag.
Believe the UK has had similar challenges dismissed, iirc.
We'll likely end up having our fishing stocks decimated as things are going.

On pedophilia it has been contested whether they should have the exact same data protection privileges when it comes at the risk of the welfare of children.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/14/european-commission-putting-paedophiles-privacy-ahead-fighting/amp/
This for known offences as opposed to the risk of re-offending say in another jurisdiction.

On previous examples I'd say the fear is ungrounded. But open to correction or further explanation.

[Aldo1988]

Cheers. Can kind of see what you mean.

Mayhaps they'd like to elaborate?

@dicko @Aldo

It's quite clear what I mean. CCTV wants to come across as some kind of hero/protector of the meak but is being taken for a ride by believing everything that he reads on this forum. There are hell of a lot of people in England who choose from an early age that being on benifits is a career and do well for it. I might sound like some right wing nutter but I see and experience it everyday of my life.

[Mike Lad]

I'm not sure I follow you here Mike
I'm not sure I follow you either, dude....

All I'm saying is that I think people have legitimate concerns about the Tories having ultimately more clout outside of the EU. Maybe I completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

The stuff about fishing - I'll bite. You got sources?

And about pedophiles - well. I'll be honest, I read the article you linked, and just by reading that one article, I can't sum up the problem. What is the problem? OK, I get it, there's some EU law that basically enables pedos to pedo, and if only that pesky law wasn't there, then all the pedo crimes could be solved tonight, right? But take all the sensationalist stuff away and what's the problem, really? What's the law, what's the actual thing it prevents, and is it really a bad thing? I literally can't tell from the article. And I only ask because I know Theresa May in particular is BIG on snooping. So I'm a bit cynical as to Sajid Javid's motives on this. I don't necessarily agree that being able to spy on everyone is a good thing.

[Aldo1988]

Even though I'm not a big fan of Will Self he nailed it when he said “every racist and anti-Semite in the country voted for Brexit."

Watch the video of him and Mark Francois, the Tory prick is absolutely clueless.

[Balinkay]

Fry had shared it on twitter - that Mark character is hilarious. :D

[CCTV]

I'm not sure I follow you either, dude....

All I'm saying is that I think people have legitimate concerns about the Tories having ultimately more clout outside of the EU. Maybe I completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

The stuff about fishing - I'll bite. You got sources?

And about pedophiles - well. I'll be honest, I read the article you linked, and just by reading that one article, I can't sum up the problem. What is the problem? OK, I get it, there's some EU law that basically enables pedos to pedo, and if only that pesky law wasn't there, then all the pedo crimes could be solved tonight, right? But take all the sensationalist stuff away and what's the problem, really? What's the law, what's the actual thing it prevents, and is it really a bad thing? I literally can't tell from the article. And I only ask because I know Theresa May in particular is BIG on snooping. So I'm a bit cynical as to Sajid Javid's motives on this. I don't necessarily agree that being able to spy on everyone is a good thing.

I'm looking for you to expand your idea or fear.

What exactly are the fears in a specific sense ?
Are there any instances where they've tried 'it' before now, as in challenged eu rulings to warrant such fears ?
Where are the issues perceived to be ?
Is there a human right you see coming under attack?
Do you think the Tories might lead Britain into an unjustifiable war after leaving the EU, which the eu would prevent if ye were still in it ?
Is it just ye fear Tories? Do you fear labour outside of the EU?
------

I listed 2 items off the top of my head where I've seen the eu being challenged on its rulings/decrees. Neither were mad as I see it. That was my point.

The point here was to show, as I understand it that when issues with rulings are contested they are practical and sensible. Which suggests as it's been claimed/outlined they will keep most if not all of the rulings/precedents.

One example highlighted difficulties with respect to tackling pedophilia. Your response seems to be that this in itself isn't enough (true), but that is besides the point surely ?
It demonstrates where an issue was actually raised and unless you have a problem with that issue being raised, it's an actual case. It's not bemoaning your data protection, its showing where a problem was raised against it. I believe that instance to be sensible.
If you think children's charities are part of some Tory conspiracy to get at your private data, we'll simply have to leave that there tbh. I doubt you do.
I doubt you have a problem with pedophiles data protections being voided in the interest of protecting children or in prosecuting offenders.
It is a huge problem area and it will take far more to tackle it.
In this instance the pedophile would have to give their consent for their data protection to be breached legally otherwise.

Javed Khan, chief executive of Barnardo’s, Britain’s biggest charity, said:
“Online child abuse is appalling. Any regulation change should not restrict the ability of tech companies and law enforcement to work together to stop child abuse online.We would urge the EC to make a simple change to the new e-privacy regulation so that all EU countries can continue to fight this horrific crime effectively....The purpose of the regulations are stop the abuse and misuse of people's data and privacy but the consequence is it potentially undermines what is being done to tackle child sexual abuse online.”

It is understood a number of other European countries have raised concerns in an attempt to force through an alternative option aligning the privacy laws with the GDPR exemptions.
----------

The documentaries I listed would be a good starting place. Atlantic (https://theatlanticstream.com) in particular if you have an interest in fishing and how stocks become decimated.

The other 1 (shell to sea iirc) shows not so much on fishing itself. But it shows how weak environmental protections in the eu actually are as detailed earlier. It shows our liberal/pro-europe coppers beating protesting pensioners. Another documentary on over fishing is , the end of the line by Rupert Murray?.

There are loads of articles out there about fishing & overfishing. I'm not looking through them for you to find ones I've read before and try and convince you that we are overfishing and this resource is being poorly managed.
I've gone out of my way to find this article as it is a specific source on a claim I make and it's not the exact piece I read before. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/phys.org/news/2009-01-fish-guts-marine-carbon-mystery.amp

I'm not particularly good with search engines.

If in your own research into fishing you've come across or come across in the future a piece on how fishing bans restore corals, post it here please.

[CCTV]

It's quite clear what I mean. CCTV wants to come across as some kind of hero/protector of the meak but is being taken for a ride by believing everything that he reads on this forum. There are hell of a lot of people in England who choose from an early age that being on benifits is a career and do well for it. I might sound like some right wing nutter but I see and experience it everyday of my life.

Sorry for losing it in the matchthread with you, though I'd likely do it again.

I thought it was poor form, what you said and your insinuations as I saw it (still maintain that tbh), still I'll hold myself up as behaving in a poor and ineffective manner. A bit of a dick.

If you behave like a dick online, you can be treated like a dick online. I hold that for myself on here and believe many posters do agree with you that I am dick. Such is the world and free speech.

Think its bizarre to look at the unemployed in the Brexit vote when the majority of people work.

If you think the generationally unemployed or an approximation to that idea have it very easy I'd disagree.

[CCTV]

Might not be much of an apology.

[CCTV]

Next up

Demographics

Now in the 1970s I'm guessing 2.4 children per family in Blighty.

Recent times , you'll need to check, as low as 1.2 children.

Ageing population, baby boomers, just after the war , living longer putting extreme strains on nhs, services, and so on.

Coupled with the fact that to be a university graduate you need £45k+ to become a nurse, doctor, and so on.

So where do you get the qualified people.

Elsewhere.

Britain needs migration. Always has always will. And especiallywith the above stats.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/november2018
"Meanwhile, young males were more likely to be living with their parents than young females (32% of males aged 20 to 34 years, compared with 20% of females aged 20 to 34 years). In general, young adults in the UK are more likely to be living with their parents now than in any time for which comparable data exists (1996 onwards)."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2017
"In 2017, the total fertility rate (TFR) declined for the fifth consecutive year to 1.76 children per woman, from 1.81 in 2016.

'Fertility rates decreased for every age group in 2017, except for women aged 40 years and over, where the rate increased by 1.3% to 16.1 births per 1,000 women in that age group, reaching the highest level since 1949.

The average age of mothers in 2017 increased to 30.5 years, from 30.4 years in 2016 and 26.4 years in 1975.

In 2017, just over half of all live births were born to parents who were married or in a civil partnership (51.9%); however, 67.3% of live births born outside of marriage or civil partnership were to parents who lived together.

28.4% of live births in 2017 were to mothers born outside the UK, following a gradual rise from 11.6% in 1990."

1.8 children per woman say.
---------
Heard a 'Tory' called moggy saying that there are more places at university since the fees came in, while the lowest 10% of the income distribuiton are now getting into university more easily. He talked about some thresholds for those who took out loans to go to university whereby if they didnt earn above 21k/year they are exempted. Proposed raising to 26k/year.
Not rechecked that so open to correction.

[CCTV]

Magic washing machine
And the incredible stats the other

Lots of great interesting videos on Ted

Jamie Oliver... obesity
And Mike Biddle ..... about plastics
Elon Musk and travel under the city

https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_biddle/up-next

Oh and Google driverless car... x2

Watched the Oliver obesity one, hes passionate :)
It's amazing how the general quality of food consumed has decreased.
The amount of sugar one can consume thinking your having a healthy diet is scary. Seen it over here with a doctor and one non-obese or even close family and the parents were shocked at the guidelines versus their young kids consumption. The doctor said as well that there are visually obese people but that there are also people who are internally obese.

From wikipedia (quiet bali:))
"TOFI[1][2] (thin-outside-fat-inside) is used to describe lean individuals with a disproportionate amount of fat (adipose tissue) stored in their abdomen. The figure to illustrate this shows two men, both 35 years old, with a BMI of 25 kg/m2. Despite their similar size, the TOFI had 5.86 litres of internal fat, whilst the healthy control had only 1.65 litres."

Think this is a great tedtalk. Mick the vegan a youtuber critiques it, but his critique seems to be rather poor, including assumptions about the methodology that were incorrect.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Hes written a book and has massive support in the farming community. Explains more elsewhere too.

[CCTV]

Yep another valid point.
This is the case in other wealthy European countries.
Immigrants (I hate this term) taking our jobs. Bullshit , people too lazy to work.

The average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime.

Overall, the future net contribution of 2016 arrivals alone to the UK public finances is estimated at £25bn.

Had there been no immigration at all in 2016, the rest of us would have had, over time, to find £25bn, through higher taxes, public service cuts, or higher borrowing.

The means to an end argument, should imo dissipate the grandstanding on higher moral principles, but it does have material consequences perhaps.

25 billion is no laughing matter over their lifetimes. Say 25 years and its a shortfall of a billion a year from revenue.
Revenue?

https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/current_revenue
"Total UK public revenue will amount to £775.8 billion in 2019. Of this 42 percent will be in indirect taxes, 33 percent in income taxes, 18 percent in national insurance contributions, and 7 percent in business and other revenue." Not sure if that is representative of years, guess so for now.

Obviously there's likely to be or may be tariffs on goods that presently do not have them, which would hit consumers spending, but it might benefit the exchequer if you are concerned about revenue overall. I dont know on this so cant claim anything. Just a thought ?

Have you seen 'the UK gold' documentary? Could grab a billion out of them.

[CCTV]

Question

5. What does the UK pay for Europe , but gain from being in the European Union?

6. How can you offer a referendum to the people on such a complex issue?

5 --- https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

"The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.

In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at nearly £9 billion.

Each year the UK gets a discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth about £5.6 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18.6 billion in contributions.

The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.

In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at nearly £9 billion.

Each year the UK gets a discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth about £5.6 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18.6 billion in contributions.

The UK doesn’t pay or "send to Brussels" this higher figure of £18.6 billion, or anything equivalent per week or per day. The rebate is applied straight away (its size is calculated based on the previous year's contributions), so the UK never contributes this much.

The UK’s contributions to the budget vary from year to year, and are forecast to grow towards the end of the decade. They’ve been larger recently than in previous decades.

A membership fee isn’t the same as the total economic cost or benefit of EU membership.

Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits.

£350 million a week doesn’t include the rebate
It’s been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That misses out the rebate, and it doesn’t represent the total economic costs and benefits of EU membership to the UK.

£350 million is roughly what we would pay to the EU budget without the rebate. The UK actually paid closer to £250 million a week.

The UK Statistics Authority has said the EU membership fee figure of £19 billion a year, or £350 million a week, is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year".

Since then, the new chair of the Authority described use of the figure by the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, as “a clear misuse of official statistics”.

The UK gets money back
The government then gets some of that money back, mainly through payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall.

In 2017, the UK's ‘public sector receipts’ are estimated to be £4 billion.

So overall we paid in £8.9 billion more than we got back.

The Treasury figures note payments the EU makes directly to the private sector, such as research grants. In 2015, these were worth an estimated £1.5 billion, so including them could reduce our net contribution further still.

The money we get back will be spent on things the government may or may not choose to fund upon leaving the EU. It’s not enough to look at the net contribution in isolation because what we get back isn’t fully under our control."
----

6 - the people are sovereign. Referendums are critiqued in theory as those who do tend to say politicians are elected to govern and should do so themselves. It's a fair point but then referendum's should all be critiqued.

The unusual thing about Brexit is that it seems to be a rare referendum where the opportunity to vote and decide the outcome was say not what the government wanted.

In general I'd say you only get to vote in a referendum, where its given freely and not mandated, when the possibility to change is in line with government or institutional desires.

[dicko1969]

A lot to take in.
First thanks to everyone for discussing .

I really do believe that Europe is a good way forward.

The brexiters voted pretty much re immigration and nhs

I think I stated the increase of population is mainly down to an ageing population and baby boomers

UK population increase by 10million.
(Last 15years - 20 years)

Probably 8.5 million the baby boomers and ageing population.

1.5 million net migration

Why do I believe in Europe :

1. Because we are at the negotiating table in Brussels

2. Trade and access to 500million market

3. Peace and collaboration with access to shared technology re planes, ships for military

4. Environment unity to tackle

5. Cultural exchanges (google it)

6. Movement of people within the community. I can work easily in Holland, france, Germany and so on.

7. University access

8. Creating partnerships towns, companies, governments to create better living.

On all the points above , a brexiter can challenge me. Sure he/she can. Because I have not researched anything in depth.

But this is what I believe is Europe. For our kids. For the next generations. I believe it's better to be in Europe.

What has happened is the European debate has been laid out on the table.

Everyone is talking about it.
Nobody knows all the facts
But Everybody now has an opinion.
Probably stronger than ever before.

Farage said in the European union parliament a few days ago , how there was "stronger unity in the people of UK".... WOW.

Demented , trying to plot the downfall of Europe.

There are 73 MEPs for the UK.
Can you name them?
What do they do?
What's their agenda?
What parties?
How to elect them?
(Elections end of May 2019)
There are 12 regions in the UK...
Are they voicing their opinions, or hiding?

This is where Europe fails.
We don't know what they are doing there
It looks very old school in their parliament
Quite a strange set up.

I think people should now say ok.
Let's stay in Europe
Put proper politicians in the European Union, parliamen (whatever that means.)
Get real value for money.

Thing is only about 30% of the public turnout for European elections. They are the end of May.

Right I have admittedly written a load of old bollox. But I don't care.

It's off the cuff, ideas , brainstorming, Saturday night. Best thread ever.

24 UKIP MEPs
20 Labour MEPs
19 CONS MEPs
+10

[dicko1969]

Having listened to Mr Farage and his colleagues and seeing the hubris with which he stands here and
the self-gratification of his position, I sometimes wonder: has he gone to Sunderland and talked to the
workers at the Nissan plant and said to them 'It might cost you your job, but I will get my pipe dream
of so-called sovereignty

– but it might cost you your job, sorry, but I will get my pipe dream of so-
called sovereignty' – has he done that?


Has he gone to Oxford to the Mini plant and said 'I know what
BMW are thinking if there is a no-deal Brexit, but I want it so badly, this no-deal Brexit, that I really do
not care about your job' – has he done that?


That would have been the honest thing to do, I suppose.
Has Dr Liam Fox ever said 'Well, I said it would be the easiest trade deal in human history, but on
second thought, it is much more complicated than I promised before the referendum.'

Has Boris
Johnson gone to the doctors and nurses of the NHS and said 'I did promise you 350 million extra
Pounds a week, but sorry, I cannot deliver on that promise.' Have they done that?

I think frankly that
we would need, if want to come out of this situation, a bit more modesty and honesty on all sides.


I also believe – I just refer to a report by the UK government published in November last year – where
it said that if there is a no-deal Brexit, this would cost approximately 9.3% economic growth.

Are you
willing to pay that price, I ask the Brexiteers on this side?

Are you willing to pay that price?

Are you
willing to sacrifice all those jobs for your pipe dream of so-called sovereignty.

What is that sovereignty
going to bring to you if you live that pipe dream?

[Balinkay]

Whoa, the unis used to be free in the UK?

You commies! :D

[dicko1969]

As a 'mature' student, over 21+ tuition fees free. 1990s.

[Aldo1988]

Whoa, the unis used to be free in the UK?

You commies! :D

The student numbers are dropping like a bomb and the Universities are in millions in dept. The government will bail out the bankers but not the universities.

[dicko1969]

UK is a mess
Massive debt
Did I read 90% of GDP

[CCTV]

A lot to take in.
First thanks to everyone for discussing .

Demented , trying to plot the downfall of Europe.

There are 73 MEPs for the UK.
Can you name them?
What do they do?
What's their agenda?
What parties?
How to elect them?
(Elections end of May 2019)
There are 12 regions in the UK...
Are they voicing their opinions, or hiding?

This is where Europe fails.
We don't know what they are doing there
It looks very old school in their parliament
Quite a strange set up.

I think people should now say ok.
Let's stay in Europe
Put proper politicians in the European Union, parliamen (whatever that means.)
Get real value for money.

Thing is only about 30% of the public turnout for European elections.


First sentences agree. Think we need to add more detail and corrections though. On my points too.

The euro is the downfall of Europe. Germany as a central authority its consequence.

72.2% turnout for Brexit shows it is a highly interesting vote for the electorate imo and shows the level of totally disaffected voters in the UK. Ie if you didnt vote for Brexit you probably have 0 trust in politics or voting.
It seems you are attacking the eu and demanding this failed institution should be retained regardless.


Having listened to Mr Farage and his colleagues and seeing the hubris with which he stands here and
the self-gratification of his position, I sometimes wonder: has he gone to Sunderland and talked to the
workers at the Nissan plant and said to them 'It might cost you your job, but I will get my pipe dream
of so-called sovereignty

– but it might cost you your job, sorry, but I will get my pipe dream of so-
called sovereignty' – has he done that?


Has he gone to Oxford to the Mini plant and said 'I know what
BMW are thinking if there is a no-deal Brexit, but I want it so badly, this no-deal Brexit, that I really do
not care about your job' – has he done that?


That would have been the honest thing to do, I suppose.
Has Dr Liam Fox ever said 'Well, I said it would be the easiest trade deal in human history, but on
second thought, it is much more complicated than I promised before the referendum.'

Has Boris
Johnson gone to the doctors and nurses of the NHS and said 'I did promise you 350 million extra
Pounds a week, but sorry, I cannot deliver on that promise.' Have they done that?

I think frankly that
we would need, if want to come out of this situation, a bit more modesty and honesty on all sides.

I also believe – I just refer to a report by the UK government published in November last year – where
it said that if there is a no-deal Brexit, this would cost approximately 9.3% economic growth.

Are you
willing to pay that price, I ask the Brexiteers on this side?

Are you willing to pay that price?

Are you
willing to sacrifice all those jobs for your pipe dream of so-called sovereignty.

What is that sovereignty
going to bring to you if you live that pipe dream?

"A bit more modesty and honesty on all sides" You could apply your critique in a more balanced manner, guess we all could.

Nissan voters do not need to be protected from political thought.

Projections like these I'd suggest are rather hollow "it said that if there is a no-deal Brexit, this would cost approximately 9.3% economic growth."

The economy hasnt tanked already as predicted, nor has been outside the euro currency manifested as foretold. Trying to discuss these claims will take time and effort.

Again balanced characterisations might he best included.
On the day of Brexits results it was an interesting and purported issue, how would the elected politicians who oppose Brexit manage to deliver Brexit as per the results of the referendum. Reported figures 66% of elected mps favour remain.


Whoa, the unis used to be free in the UK?

You commies! :D

Iirc the finances were directed into the NHS, so maybe they're all commies !!

The rising costs in healthcare and poorer and poorer daily living standards rise, an issue about our lifestyles today. Treating more ailments which have arisen from poorer conditions.

[Balinkay]

Poorer conditions?! Is the quality of life in the UK lower than it was say 20 years ago?!

[dicko1969]

Are we poorer than 20 years ago?

No idea.

British "immigrants" in Europe are. £1=€1.15.

Out of interest , having not been to Northern Ireland or Ireland for 20 years, how does it work if you are on the border.

Is it cheaper to buy petrol?
I know on the French Belgium border you have situations.
Same Luxembourg
Same Swiss, obviously not in EU.

I remember 90s guys going on p&o ferries Dover/ Calais buying cigarettes everyday selling on in the UK , making a small fortune.

Are we poorer?
A washing machine, cars, are cheaper relatively speaking compared to 20 , 30 40 years ago.

Mind you the washing machine only lasts 5 years now. Compared to 15+ years 30 years ago.

[dicko1969]

Can you pay with Euro & Pounds? In EIRE/ NI

[CCTV]

Can you pay with Euro & Pounds? In EIRE/ NI

Some border petrol stations will take both currencies as they'll spend on both sides of the border. You might lose a little value if your using the wrong currency.
Otherwise its euros and pounds in the respective regions

[CCTV]

Cheaper to buy petrol down south iirc, Ian might be best to ask. Cheaper to buy pretty much everything else up north.

[stevie harkness]

Seamus O Rourke, genius

https://youtu.be/bsBmRwrQfXw

[CCTV]

Poorer conditions?! Is the quality of life in the UK lower than it was say 20 years ago?!


Are we poorer than 20 years ago?

No idea.

I would say.

Materially. No.
Economics of the individual, perhaps. Politics same ^^^
Psychologically, mental/physical health and societally. Yes.

It depends what you value really. Well being or materialism.
If you live in a city compared with a rural setting, it's likely a bit less worse of a difference perhaps.

No substantive piece alone I can cite here, but this would be my opinion based on reading trends and findings. Whilst it has been related to me by individuals I've met who work in 'crisis management' in the NHS.

For example on average the triangular distance between work, home and social is bigger on average. Such increases in this distance come with known negative consequences.
Couple this say with the broader influence of increasing inequality and I think it is evidently so. You have increasing feelings of isolation, declining levels of trust, these all point to a society in decline imo. There've been improvements in areas but overall a decline.

I'd say the country is richer and the society sicker.

I dont think it is solely related to these terrorist attacks, but where people are posting never a worse time than now to bring children into the world say that this is also connected to the general changes in daily living. Declining empathy per generation of college graduates for example is to be found in secondary schools too.

Primary education is pretty good, secondary school is where the education needs drastic action imo and experience. Colleges need reform too but it's more essential in secondary.

[CCTV]

I'm not claiming expertise in these areas. The medical member most accessible to me did vote for remain.

I think in our modern society theres a tendency for people to report progress that isn't reflected in the say medical/psychiatric fields.

[stevie harkness]

Our mental and emotional health are not commodities that can be bought, sold or invested, they cannot be manufactured, advertised, or marketed and as such have no value in terms of GDP or other such bollox.

[CCTV]

Our mental and emotional health are not commodities that can be bought, sold or invested, they cannot be manufactured, advertised, or marketed and as such have no value in terms of GDP or other such bollox.

You are not allowed to sell children for a reason....

[stevie harkness]

Somethings are not for sale, you may deem them valueless if it pleases you

Thanks mate, I was being sarcastic.

They are deemed valueless by the system.

"Economics is a form of brain damage" David Suzuki

[CCTV]

Thanks mate, I was being sarcastic.

They are deemed valueless by the system.

"Economics is a form of brain damage" David Suzuki

Apologies, hard for me to tell with posts sometimes.

[CCTV]

Maybe often, regularly or consistently

[Balinkay]

Idk CC, I'm a pretty materialistic kind of guy (I think a lot of it is down to growing up in a crumbling post communist Eastern European state). The "society is sicker" opinion is definitely one that has merit to it and I share in some regards, but far too many factors play into it for me to really take it seriously without some in-depth consideration. For example 20 years ago you were a teenager / young adult and had no internet, so less access to news. The media functioned slightly differently back then too I'd imagine. It is definitely an interesting point. Have to think about it.

@stevie

I'm not certain that's the case. A well functioning worker produces more wealth and therefore pumps up the GDP. If being mentally stable is a serious factor in being a well functioning worker, I can see it being of great interest to economists. On the flip side antidepressants and psychotherapy cost a fortune and generate tax revenue.

[dicko1969]

The country or county define probably if you are poor, even a postcode.

It really depends how you define being poor.

I remember a guy called mamadou from Mali, visited me. Said to me I was rich, because i had a car, a tv, a fridge, and food in it.

The thing is talking to a friend , who said to me that his 3 yo watches tv and is constantly bombarded with messages to buy .

Toys . McDonald's. Technology.
Amazing how companies can start the psychological mind games so early.

"We are all consumer addicts"

[dicko1969]

Back on track

So BREXIT

what happens next?

Btw social media meltdown, brexit 'discussion' looks worse than an lfc forum after defeat.

[CCTV]

Idk CC, I'm a pretty materialistic kind of guy (I think a lot of it is down to growing up in a crumbling post communist Eastern European state). The "society is sicker" opinion is definitely one that has merit to it and I share in some regards, but far too many factors play into it for me to really take it seriously without some in-depth consideration.
For example 20 years ago you were a teenager / young adult and had no internet, so less access to news. The media functioned slightly differently back then too I'd imagine. It is definitely an interesting point. Have to think about it.

@stevie

I'm not certain that's the case. A well functioning worker produces more wealth and therefore pumps up the GDP. If being mentally stable is a serious factor in being a well functioning worker, I can see it being of great interest to economists. On the flip side antidepressants and psychotherapy cost a fortune and generate tax revenue.

You seem to think or portray increasing material wealth and more equality as exclusive avenues. Equality here not being a communist definition, but more a measure of the level of financial inequality.
Do you want a healthier society or more material wealth. But this is a false dichotomy.
Maybe you'd prefer material wealth over societal health if it was an exclusive choice. Ethically such a choice would meet with scrutiny.

Communism is demonstrably flawed. It doesnt allow for enough inequality.
Similarly increasing financial inequality is demonstrably flawed.
Where the golden mean lies is a mystery in an objective sense to a point. The best answer so far suggest it was in the previous economic model and below the levels we see in western societies today.

Innovation occurred before this rise in inequality, during it and will do so after this economic model passes.

[CCTV]

The country or county define probably if you are poor, even a postcode.

It really depends how you define being poor.

I remember a guy called mamadou from Mali, visited me. Said to me I was rich, because i had a car, a tv, a fridge, and food in it.

The thing is talking to a friend , who said to me that his 3 yo watches tv and is constantly bombarded with messages to buy .

Toys . McDonald's. Technology.
Amazing how companies can start the psychological mind games so early.

"We are all consumer addicts"

You'll have 5g before people dont have to walk miles for water

[CCTV]

Children are the number one target audience of advertisers in the USA.

[CCTV]

Back on track

So BREXIT

what happens next?

Btw social media meltdown, brexit 'discussion' looks worse than an lfc forum after defeat.

The UK will honour article 50 and leave without a deal or it will not honour the triggering of article 50 and extend the period.
May's deal seems to be a dead duck.

[Balinkay]

I don't think more money -> more inequality. Like I said, build up that middle class and look at your country prosper.

I would prefer being rich and my neighbour being richer than both of us being equally poor though.

[CCTV]

I don't think more money -> more inequality. Like I said, build up that middle class and look at your country prosper.

I would prefer being rich and my neighbour being richer than both of us being equally poor though.

I get your second paragraph, that's natural.

But I'm not sure you get the concept though.

More inequality-> shrinking middle class & increased poverty within a society - based on analysis.

[CCTV]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-s-youth-are-no-big-fans-of-priests-politicians-or-police-1.3061302%3fmode=amp

"Ireland’s youth are no big fans of priests, politicians or police
Only one group fared worse than the three Ps in survey – no prizes for guessing which.

Irish millennials have expressed an almost complete lack of confidence in priests, politicians and police, who used to be considered the three pillars of Irish society.

Only 2 per cent of Irish people aged 18-34 told researchers working on behalf of the European Broadcasting Union they had complete faith in religion, while 56 per cent said they had absolutely no trust in it, according to a Europe-wide survey of 18-34-year-olds.

The survey also showed that 35 per cent of young adults in Ireland believe all politicians to be corrupt, and a further 41 per cent expressed the view that at least some of them are up to no good.

The news is not all bad for politicians, however: although just 22 per cent of Ireland’s young adults expressed a good deal of confidence in Ireland’s political class, the percentage was still sufficiently high to rank Ireland as the most trustworthy country of the 18 European states surveyed when it came to politicians’ honesty.

The news wasn’t great for An Garda Síochána, either, as 46 per cent said they distrusted the force to some extent.

Children of the revolution
The survey also suggested that the political world should be on its guard, as more than half of Ireland’s millennials appeared to be prepared to join a “large-scale uprising against the generation in power”.

The results all come from Generation What Europe, a landmark 149-question survey taken by nearly a million young people across Europe – including more than 20,000 in the Republic – covering a range of topics from politics to happiness, education, nationhood and immigration.

Despite the growth of nationalism and populist politics, there seems to be no appetite for a ban on immigration across Europe, with 73 per cent saying they believed immigration made society richer, and Spain, Germany and Denmark all supporting immigration by more than 80 per cent.

An overwhelming 98 per cent said they could not be happy without music, while 73 per cent tied their happiness to books and a somewhat suspicious 63 per cent said they could get along without their mobile phone. That percentage fell to a slightly more convincing 52 per cent when the internet was involved.

While politicians, the guards and religion all fared badly in the trust stakes, they were not the least-trusted groups. That dubious honour belongs to the fourth estate, with 43 per cent of those aged 18-34 saying they had no trust in the media and a further 44 per cent expressing a degree of mistrust.

All told only 1 per cent said they had total faith in the media."

A good deal of confidence;) and we are typically highest or second highest where I've seen these types of polls.

It amazes me how European countries have a terrible opinion of politicians they know in their own country. Yet on the larger macro level when these same chancers go to Europe they seem to think this level of politics is much grander, while certainly not to blame.
It is baffling imo ^^

[CCTV]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/over-half-of-young-people-in-ireland-would-join-a-mass-uprising-against-the-government-a7703141.html%3famp

Another article...
"Fifty four per cent of 18 - 34-year-olds said they would take part in a “large scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months”......Forty five per cent said they didn’t trust politics “at all”.....However, 25 per cent said very few politicians were corrupt, a figure lower than most of those in the same generation who were surveyed in 14 other countries.....Eighty per cent of men and 78 per cent of women said they could be happy without religious belief and just 20 per cent said they couldn’t...The police were not trusted by a large portion of people surveyed said did not fully trust the force....However, the army scored highly on trust levels, with nearly 50 per cent of people trusting it to a large extent."

Theyd support the uprising til the they're told they might have no money in the atms.

It's interesting that in Brexit people bemoan the instability of brexit and the old for Brexit. Yet the old tend to be charged with voting to protect their economic interests. Yet here they've the most at risk immediately and have decided (allegedly they voted heavily for Brexit, or just a stereotype?) to risk their wealth for the future !

It's ironic imo listening to holier than thou remainers revel that with many old people dying they might overturn the referendum.

[CCTV]

In previous eu polls Ireland (21%) was second to Germany (23%) in believing 'politicians are sincere at least most of the the time'.
As low as 7% in parts of the EU.

[Balinkay]

In previous eu polls Ireland (21%) was second to Germany (23%) in believing 'politicians are sincere at least most of the the time'.
As low as 7% in parts of the EU.

Pff. 7% of my compatriots are deluded then.

On a more serious note, the whole "more inequality -> shrinking middle class and more poverty" I'd have to look at more precisely. I don't know much about economics, so it's hardly a surprise I don't immediately see an intuitive reason as to why that should be the case, besides the obvious sense, which would then render the statement a tautology.

[dicko1969]

Tbh

All politicians all over the world are corrupt.

Ask Brazilians about Lula

Or Venezuelans...

Police... let's look at what happened 15 April 1989

Priests. Jeez how sad it is that even in the circle of religion.


What's the other p?

Kotlers 4 Ps ?
Price Place Product Promotion.

[dicko1969]

Money doesn't create happiness
But if you don't have it you are miserable

[CCTV]

A tautology is apt here imo.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/a-tale-of-two-recoveries-wealth-inequality-after-the-great-recession/
Looks at it in USA, holds here if only a little less.

https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/deconstructing-branko-milanovics-elephant-chart-does-it-show
A critique/adjustment ventured to the original elephant graph, which is presented.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/2/2/16868838/elephant-graph-chart-global-inequality-economic-growth
An updated graph with another decade and adjustments/critique amended as best I can tell.

Read a book as a pre teen (name escapes me has a reddish cover) in the 90s about the loss of employment to automation and China in particular of the developing nations. The idea/strategy to create increased service industries, design things to break more easily to promote more service industries and further extend hours of business to create new jobs in services. These were largely meaningless jobs made to keep people busy in general.
We think North Korea is mad for giving people tiny scissors to cut grass in public spaces, meaningless jobs to keep them busy. We pretty much did the same.

[CCTV]

Money doesn't create happiness
But if you don't have it you are miserable

Well said. You need just enough n no more really. But if you have none it's really tough to get any.
The euphoria of winning the euromillions dissipates after 6 months and you'll very likely be as happy as you were before.
If you desire wealth over meaning you'll be miserable.

The 4th Pillar was the press/media

[dicko1969]

Lottery winners
Wow just youtube the disaster cases.

If you are lower class, whatever that means, it takes 2 generations to become middle class.

You don't change class overnight because you won shot loads of money

[CCTV]

Lottery winners
Wow just youtube the disaster cases.

If you are lower class, whatever that means, it takes 2 generations to become middle class.

You don't change class overnight because you won shot loads of money

It's not confined to the working class. It applies to the middle and upper class too.

Social mobility is attainable in one generation though.

Far more interesting youtubes in the field of medicine.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eb5SmhY30kw
Stents & Statins - Do they work? A top cardiologist's view.
Published on Aug 25, 2018
A highly respected UK cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, reveals his controversial views on coronary stents and statin drugs (8:55), in this extract from a longer presentation on health promoted by the EU parliament,, April 2018. https://youtu.be/H4uVNywg848
Here's an independent french study that did extensive analysis on statin use and effectiveness, which largely debunks the popular industry-supplied (drug company) recommendations. http://bit.ly/statins-research-2015. They concluded that "physicians should be aware that the present claims about the efficacy and safety of statins are not evidence based."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
https://t.co/myub2ihFcG

^^ that YouTube description doesnt do his talk justice imo. Basically he details the influence of criminalinity in his field.

[stevie harkness]

There's an online petition now to revoke article 50 and stay in the EU, the website keeps crashing under the strain but surely it can't be stopped? It's taking 3 fking years

[Balinkay]

Assuming a deal can't be reached in any reasonable amount of time, would you guys be ok with a new referendum with a new and improved question?

"Leave with no deal" vs "Stay"

[CCTV]

There's an online petition now to revoke article 50 and stay in the EU, the website keeps crashing under the strain but surely it can't be stopped? It's taking 3 fking years

Seems to be just another attempt to protest the results. Unlikely to have any reasonable basis other than most of the elected parliamentarians would also like to suppress the referendum results.

"It is not the most popular ever on the Parliament website. A petition for a second EU referendum in June 2016 attracted more than four million signatures and was debated in the Commons - but thousands of signatures were removed after it was discovered to have been hijacked by automated bots.
Another popular petition aimed to prevent US President Donald Trump from making a state visit, which attracted 1.8m signatures."
From a BBC article

[CCTV]

Assuming a deal can't be reached in any reasonable amount of time, would you guys be ok with a new referendum with a new and improved question?

"Leave with no deal" vs "Stay"

Not sure that would be legal.

[CCTV]

Or wise.

[stevie harkness]

I don't know how long the petition has been up to compare it to other previous ones. It seemed it ignited today. And doesn't half the time "closed for maintenance". Leader of the house of commons said it would have to get to 17m.

This petition is probably just a way for the Gestapo to collect the names and addresses of remainers

I don't fancy leaving with no deal but another referendum would surely stop Brexit.

[Balinkay]

Or wise.

I get the legal part, but could you elaborate on this one?

[CCTV]

Interesting the Gestapo are those who arent trying to surpress the results right.

Going off polls that I've seen I think your claim about stopping Brexit via a second referendum is wishful thinking.

I'd be very surprised if there was a second referendum.

[stevie harkness]

Interesting the Gestapo are those who arent trying to surpress the results right.

Going off polls that I've seen I think your claim about stopping Brexit via a second referendum is wishful thinking.

I'd be very surprised if there was a second referendum.

It's only wishful thinking if you want to stop Brexit.

I don't see anyone suppressing the result, it is known, has been for nearly 3 years now. It's been in all the papers.

[CCTV]

It's only wishful thinking if you want to stop Brexit.

I don't see anyone suppressing the result, it is known, has been for nearly 3 years now. It's been in all the papers.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

Heres polling data since the referendum. Ask Bali if he recalls me getting both Brexit and trump results right in the older threads despite the polls suggesting otherwise.

The dont knows should swing in favour of Brexit, as will the Brexit support be underscored as people fear bring called Gestapo et al so they lie on the polls.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum

I don't see any validation in your claim or question being answered otherwise.

In Scotland polling data suggests that the opinion is in favour of staying with the UK even without EU, rather than leaving the UK to stay with the EU.
I gather this isn't the claim being made by the politicians or the press ?
Its they need another referendum which theyd lose again. (Personally I'd have voted for Scottish indepndence)

[Balinkay]

I don't remember you getting them right, no. Too much unnecessary stuff floating about in my head. :D

[CCTV]

I get the legal part, but could you elaborate on this one?

You had a devicive referendum, one side lost the other side won.
If you dont let the winners win in a democracy, you dont have a democracy.

Britain not leaving would imo be far worse of an outcome than no deal Brexit.
It could also likely be so for the eu and its institutional interests.

[CCTV]

I don't remember you getting them right, no. Too much unnecessary stuff floating about in my head. :D

Well that's a pity. I cant find them old threads on the forum. I predicted both even with the polling data suggesting otherwise.

[CCTV]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum

[CCTV]

Not sure why that link ^^ isn't working it's the url I'm copying from the source page. Yet posted as a link doesnt bring you to that same page.

[stevie harkness]

You've lost me CCTV (not for the first time!)

For what it's worth I don't think we have a democracy in Britain, not worthy of the name anyway. The Welsh referendum was a fudge but it turned out okay in the end so nobody talks about it anymore.

[CCTV]

Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

^^ that's the title on wikipedia
Just below that title, near the top of the page (obviously) is a graph of the polls on Brexit.
It shows the remain, leave and undecided voters.

[CCTV]

You've lost me CCTV (not for the first time!)

For what it's worth I don't think we have a democracy in Britain, not worthy of the name anyway. The Welsh referendum was a fudge but it turned out okay in the end so nobody talks about it anymore.

The way I see the polls it just isn't a supportable position.
Shown the polls post Brexit and the polls before Brexit as far back as end of 2012. If you look at the polls there just isn't enough support there to be likely seen in a real poll or referendum, as I see it.

It's a manufacturing of consent or opinion based on ignoring the lessons from the last time out.
The only was I think you could believe a rerun of the vote could deliver a remain result is if you believed Brexit was never going to happen in the first place. Such belief was wrong then and as I see it wrong again.

[CCTV]

The justification for a re-run from remain is more one of hope than an evidence based one as I see it.

[Balinkay]

You had a devicive referendum, one side lost the other side won.
If you dont let the winners win in a democracy, you dont have a democracy.

Britain not leaving would imo be far worse of an outcome than no deal Brexit.
It could also likely be so for the eu and its institutional interests.

The problem was that a referendum goes pretty starkly against the whole point of a representative democracy. I think it was idiotic to put it to a people's vote to begin with, especially when implemented as poorly as this. I don't know if the result will benefit the UK over a long period of time or not - hard to say. What I do know is that one side of the referendum covered a very wide range of views on the topic - the "Leave" side (No deal, Norway, Ukraine, Switzerland-style Brexit, custom Brexit and so on), while the other was hugely specific - nothing changes. At the end of the day, as much as remoaners get on my nerves for not accepting the will of the people (even though I think a people's vote on such an issue is moronic), I think they have a point when they say that the options put before the people were not the ones which will most likely end up taking place. Or at least those options were in no way clearly laid out, since the Brexiteers had about as much of an idea as to what to do in case of success as I do after asking out a girl.


Well that's a pity. I cant find them old threads on the forum. I predicted both even with the polling data suggesting otherwise.

To be fair, you do predict more than your fair share of seemingly absurd things, like Suarez coming back the summer before last, so it wouldn't surprise me the least bit if you indeed got these ones right. For what it's worth, I was fairly certain Trump would win the nomination after he announced his campaign, though I did think Hilary would narrowly win.


The justification for a re-run from remain is more one of hope than an evidence based one as I see it.

For a lot of people yes. But then again the justification for a Brexit vote for many was surely the Norway model, no?

[CCTV]

The problem was that a referendum goes pretty starkly against the whole point of a representative democracy. I think it was idiotic to put it to a people's vote to begin with, especially when implemented as poorly as this. I don't know if the result will benefit the UK over a long period of time or not - hard to say. What I do know is that one side of the referendum covered a very wide range of views on the topic - the "Leave" side (No deal, Norway, Ukraine, Switzerland-style Brexit, custom Brexit and so on), while the other was hugely specific - nothing changes. At the end of the day, as much as remoaners get on my nerves for not accepting the will of the people (even though I think a people's vote on such an issue is moronic), I think they have a point when they say that the options put before the people were not the ones which will most likely end up taking place. Or at least those options were in no way clearly laid out, since the Brexiteers had about as much of an idea as to what to do in case of success as I do after asking out a girl.


The vote was fairly simple, leave the eu or remain. I'd argue that when people voted to join the EU the stage was similarly set. Dont join nothing changes, join and things would change. Do you think the electorate back then were voting on changes they'd fully understand or could envisage? I would say they didnt and that much of Brexit is in fact a reaction to what joining the EU has meant over time. The eu has altered since they joined up. Such is the nature of change.

Another referendum would be interesting and even more devicive. I'd suggest it will only compound that problem as the data or polls do not indicate what remainers believe to be the case.



To be fair, you do predict more than your fair share of seemingly absurd things, like Suarez coming back the summer before last, so it wouldn't surprise me the least bit if you indeed got these ones right. For what it's worth, I was fairly certain Trump would win the nomination after he announced his campaign, though I did think Hilary would narrowly win.

Interesting choices here Bali, Suarez, yes I'd take and wanted him back. Though in recent years even I have acknowledged that is my own wishful thinking. I wouldn't say I made that prediction as you claim, nor that we are on similar planes of prediction tbf. There is far more data available in one instance.




For a lot of people yes. But then again the justification for a Brexit vote for many was surely the Norway model, no?

Looking at the minority of elected mps in favour of Brexit I'd say it wasnt May's deal with which Brexit was voted for. Those who favoured Brexit seem to have outlined their position clearly, a good deal or a no deal. The role of negotiations was to deliver a deal that would be better than a no deal exit. These negotiations have provided May's deal or no deal. It seems those who represent Brexit voters in parliament are in favour of a no deal as it stands and are giving May till the deadline to offer up a better deal. May's negotiated deal seems to have been roundly criticised.

It seems the eu is also adamant its May's deal or no deal Brexit.

So they could have a referendum.
However it would be do you want May's deal or a no deal Brexit which would be the correct referendum surely?

[CCTV]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/latest-short-brexit-delay-possible-as-long-as-mps-vote-for-mays-deal-says-tusk-912108.html

[CCTV]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/no-deal-brexit-would-cost-irish-people-720-each-annually-says-german-study-1.3833806%3fmode=amp

[CCTV]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/c1bb68fa-4bed-11e9-bbc9-6917dce3dc62

How Theresa May decided she was willing to accept a no-deal Brexit

[CCTV]

The arguments about the role of referendums in a representative democracy are interesting ones. It's a valid consideration. I've commented earlier.

Brexit though highlights a disconnect between the public at large and their representatives in the main.

SH said he doesnt believe the UK has a democracy representative of the word. A view likely supported in the main such is peoples perception of politics as cited earlier across Europe and applies also to the wider world. This rings more true with people on the traditional left than the right.

It's not surprising to me that the negotiations have occurred as they have done.
The eu is institutionally challenged by Brexit. As such it behaves as institutions do when under threat, it prioritises the institutions desires and wants at the expense of those who it represents.

The eu would always play hard over Brexit. It can survive Britain leaving, it likely cannot survive further exits from the union.
Britain should it leave will offer an avenue and a potential partnership to others should they so chose to leave.

[Balinkay]

Completely agree that joining the EU on a referendum is just as absurd as leaving it. Smells of politicians just washing their hands and not taking the responsibility they are being paid to take. Why the hell am I paying taxes if they're going to ask me to solve all the tough problems?

Re: Suarez, of course they are different predictions - one's football, the other's fuckball. :D

A renewed referendum on "no-deal" vs "May's deal" also makes sense. I was operating under the impression that her deal wasn't even an option anymore and it was literally "no deal" vs "stay". That dude who likes to yell "ORDAAA ORDAAAA" in parliament said he wouldn't let the other scoundrels discuss "May's deal" again.

While I do agree the EU is acting in its own interests, I don't particularly see what it's doing to the detriment of those it's meant to represent, though I don't really know how the negotiations are going. Is there something glaringly bad for EU citizens in the Union's stated position on Brexit. Maybe it's acting against the best interest of the UK people. In fact I assume that's what they're doing.

Edit: Concerning the divide between the people and the parliament - I saw / heard about some study that showed something like 17% of the populace were backing some Brexit position, while over 50% of parliament wanted it to happen. USSR levels of representation in power right there.

[dicko1969]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

3.7 million now

[dicko1969]

The first referendum people were blind.
Ill-informed

Forage's propaganda

1. £350million a day nhs
2. Immigration

Today the Brit public are more savvy about what the vote is about.

If there was a 2nd referendum, when the 2nd referendum happens, Britain will remain.

[dicko1969]

The UK is in a mess because of ignorance on The EUROPEAN UNION.

24 UK MEPs in the EU are UKIP!!
Out of 73 UK MEPs.

This MUST change in the coming European elections at the end of May.

New #MEPS REPRESENTING THE UK.

[dicko1969]

UK population increase by 10 million in the last 20 years.

Baby boomers , and living age older 80+ yo.

Accounts for 8.5 million people over 20 years (1998 - 2018)

Net migration = 1.5 million in 20 years.

More retired people , means needing more people working to provide pension funds, elderly people services.

[dicko1969]

MEPs who have served one term could get a maximum pre-tax payment of €50,900 (£43,575),

while an MEP in office since 1999 could receive €169,680 before tax. (FARAGE)

The 73 MEPs will receive around £6m payoff.

Plus Farage has £500k+ assets
Offshore money
Lied about that
Plus his assets have risen from £150k to £500k in the last year.

Farage is poison. Liar.

[CCTV]

Completely agree that joining the EU on a referendum is just as absurd as leaving it. Smells of politicians just washing their hands and not taking the responsibility they are being paid to take. Why the hell am I paying taxes if they're going to ask me to solve all the tough problems?

Re: Suarez, of course they are different predictions - one's football, the other's fuckball. :D

A renewed referendum on "no-deal" vs "May's deal" also makes sense. I was operating under the impression that her deal wasn't even an option anymore and it was literally "no deal" vs "stay". That dude who likes to yell "ORDAAA ORDAAAA" in parliament said he wouldn't let the other scoundrels discuss "May's deal" again.

While I do agree the EU is acting in its own interests, I don't particularly see what it's doing to the detriment of those it's meant to represent, though I don't really know how the negotiations are going. Is there something glaringly bad for EU citizens in the Union's stated position on Brexit. Maybe it's acting against the best interest of the UK people. In fact I assume that's what they're doing.

Edit: Concerning the divide between the people and the parliament - I saw / heard about some study that showed something like 17% of the populace were backing some Brexit position, while over 50% of parliament wanted it to happen. USSR levels of representation in power right there.

Why you pay taxes is an interesting question.

On referendum's if you hold that critique consistently, then it applies equally to joining Europe as you accept it does leaving the eu. Your position is to then add another referendum as a solution. Seems a bit circular or inconsistent a position to hold.

Politicans are not what they used to be, the century of self shows quite well the destruction of politics as we used to know it.

Personally I dont see any referendum coming before the people on the Brexit matter. Article 50 was triggered, the eu seems to be only willing to accept an extension if May's deal is agreed to beforehand otherwise it wont accept an extension. The stage is set for parliament, accept May's deal which the eu approve of or leave on a no deal Brexit.

The perception is her deal is worse than a no deal and unlikely to get the votes needed. The worst of both worlds. Unless parliament votes to accept her deal the UK is looking at a no deal Brexit. They may not vote in a no deal in parliament but that'll be of little consequence. It's the default position and one the eu is willing to hold.

Imo it looks like the UK is headed for a no deal Brexit, if they want to vote on whether they accept that after it happens then they might vote but I cant see why they would hold that vote at all after the fact.
It seems to me there'll be no time for a referendum on the matter. Or if one occurs it'll likely be after the fact.

The negotiations should have started on an aggressive footing and been concluded quickly to allow for a vote, if a vote was ever intended at all.

Unlike political footballing of the matter it seems businesses have envisaged this scenario for a good while now and are best placed for a no deal Brexit.

Your edit would be interesting too see these polls as I've not seen any which even approximate to such a state of play.

[CCTV]

UK population increase by 10 million in the last 20 years.

Baby boomers , and living age older 80+ yo.

Accounts for 8.5 million people over 20 years (1998 - 2018)

Net migration = 1.5 million in 20 years.

More retired people , means needing more people working to provide pension funds, elderly people services.

Where do you get the net migration = 1.5 million in 20 years.

Going off this resource it seems to be around 4.5 or 4.6 million net migration over 20 years. 3 times your figure.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

[stevie harkness]

Teresa May now saying they might not even bother to have another vote on a deal next week. What a bunch of shameless retards. Nice work if you can get it

Mrs May outlined 4 options now:
1. Ask for another extension
2. Revoke article 50
3. No deal
4. Her deal

[stevie harkness]

The online petition hits 4 million and Farage blames "Russian collusion", that's a good name for a racehorse.

[Balinkay]

@CC

As I very clearly and explicitly stated in my previous post, asking the people wether or not to leave is about as moronic as asking them wether or not to join. Zero inconsistency there.

Let's get one thing straight - my solution to the problem is not another referendum. I'm asking why it's not the UK's. Mine would involve armed militias, gladiator rinks and copious amounts of cotton candy.

Considering the damage has been done by putting the EU membership to the people's vote twice, I can't see how staying or leaving the union could possibly hold any legitimacy if the decision is now suddenly made solely by parliament. It sounds tyrannical. This is not circularity. I'm saying that on a principal level asking the people to solve the EU question is absurd. It should not have happened. Or if it did, it should have at least been handled with so much more care and scrutiny (open to talk about that).

Once it has happened though, you've set the precedent and need to keep going, otherwise you're playing favourites and the people lose trust in their government. I.e. if the MPs just said "nope, we goin' nowhere". And yes, the UK is rather civilised, but that's how the streets come to run red in some parts of the world. Once you've said it's up to the people, you have to stick by that no matter the result.

I hope I've made it clear why those two positions don't contradict each other.

And parliament is kind of fucked, no? The stage you described is really not set, since they've voted against May's deal and to never leave the EU with no deal. They've kind of shot themselves in the foot. And stomach. And face. They're out of options. Bar seppuku maybe.

Like I said, just saw/heard about those polls somewhere online, could have been bollocks.


Your comment on the EU acting in the interest of the institution and not its people kind of worried me. Can you elaborate? I'd like to know if they were fucking me over.


Edit: I just now realised there can't be a "no-deal" vs "stay" referendum, as parliament said "no deal" is never an option.

[stevie harkness]

When I heard about the new political party, The Brexit party, I thought you're 3 years late mate - but maybe they're not as daft as they look.

From what I can tell, of the 4 options, an extension is now the most likely. Which leads to Britain having to take part in the European elections.

Which makes me think Monsieur Farage somehow knew this all along. A prediction CCTV would be proud of!

[CCTV]

Teresa May now saying they might not even bother to have another vote on a deal next week. What a bunch of shameless retards. Nice work if you can get it

Mrs May outlined 4 options now:
1. Ask for another extension
2. Revoke article 50
3. No deal
4. Her deal

Merkel has reiterated that the EU will not extend article 50 as France and Italy have spoken on the matter and Italy will use its veto.
It must be agreed and the only way France will agree is if May's deal is accepted before the date is up. Italy may still force a veto to it.
So May has a couple of days to get parliament on board with her deal (unlikely) and the people to confer via a referendum or peoples vote which would seem to be technically impossible as well as practically.
The default position is a no deal Brexit, WTO terms. It looks most likely to me.

[CCTV]

@CC

As I very clearly and explicitly stated in my previous post, asking the people wether or not to leave is about as moronic as asking them wether or not to join. Zero inconsistency there.

Let's get one thing straight - my solution to the problem is not another referendum. I'm asking why it's not the UK's. Mine would involve armed militias, gladiator rinks and copious amounts of cotton candy.

Considering the damage has been done by putting the EU membership to the people's vote twice, I can't see how staying or leaving the union could possibly hold any legitimacy if the decision is now suddenly made solely by parliament. It sounds tyrannical. This is not circularity. I'm saying that on a principal level asking the people to solve the EU question is absurd. It should not have happened. Or if it did, it should have at least been handled with so much more care and scrutiny (open to talk about that).

Once it has happened though, you've set the precedent and need to keep going, otherwise you're playing favourites and the people lose trust in their government. I.e. if the MPs just said "nope, we goin' nowhere". And yes, the UK is rather civilised, but that's how the streets come to run red in some parts of the world. Once you've said it's up to the people, you have to stick by that no matter the result.

I hope I've made it clear why those two positions don't contradict each other.

And parliament is kind of fucked, no? The stage you described is really not set, since they've voted against May's deal and to never leave the EU with no deal. They've kind of shot themselves in the foot. And stomach. And face. They're out of options. Bar seppuku maybe.

Like I said, just saw/heard about those polls somewhere online, could have been bollocks.


Your comment on the EU acting in the interest of the institution and not its people kind of worried me. Can you elaborate? I'd like to know if they were fucking me over.


Edit: I just now realised there can't be a "no-deal" vs "stay" referendum, as parliament said "no deal" is never an option.

It seemed like you did support another referendum Bali. My question was why would you think more peoples votes would be the solution if you oppose them on principle in a representative democracy. I replied to you saying what such a vote should be between as I see it.

In short I dont believe it was intended for another vote on the matter before the referendum results. Think it is just another way for people to try and prevent results from referendums. Farage was calling for a second referendum when he thought Brexit would lose so it's not to say bad losers arent on both sides. A referendum though is to be absolute. If you lose you lose, you have to bide your time until such a point in time as where another one is justifiable. For remain that is today, but in fairness that isn't a wise move by government.

Both main parties manifesto had commitments to respecting the referendums result delivering a Brexit. Article 50 was triggered where a deal was sought, but no deal was better than a bad deal.

If a no deal Brexit occurs the eu has stated it is insisting on a hard border on the north/south of Ireland border. Good luck to the eu in trying to enforce such a desire and break the good Friday agreement.

If you think the EU's tough negotiation style has done much to combat it's own image problems I think we'll have to disagree on the matter. They've merely shown that if you take the choice to leave you will get very little favour. Macron has stated in France a vote to leave might occur but he will fight against people getting the vote to paraphrase.

I wonder if anyone has looked at the links I've provided. I can only guess not since theres been little comment where otherwise there should be comments.

As per your polls I think they might well be bollocks.

It's very likely Britain will have no choice but to take a no deal Brexit, unless May by some miracle can get her deal backed in parliament and voted on by the people between now and deadline day. While her deal has been labelled bad by both sides and a betrayal of Brexit in principle.

[CCTV]

Also Bali this last decade in the main has been about preserving the euro currency and ECB. It's been a decade of austerity.

It's no surprise to me that the euro has been such a mitigated disaster. Saying that I wasnt aware that should we have a massive crony banking system that banking debts would be nationalised to keep German banks from collapsing.
In one video from Blyth posted earlier he looks at German imports and those who provide them, and then highlights the speed with which these trade dependent countries roll in behind Germany in eu politics. They are bought satellite nations linked by one language, trade. They provide political support for continued trade. This isn't how you build peace and democracy.

[CCTV]

When I heard about the new political party, The Brexit party, I thought you're 3 years late mate - but maybe they're not as daft as they look.

From what I can tell, of the 4 options, an extension is now the most likely. Which leads to Britain having to take part in the European elections.

Which makes me think Monsieur Farage somehow knew this all along. A prediction CCTV would be proud of!

Extension needs the eu on board, it's not, only chance is if May's deal is approved before the request.

[stevie harkness]

Extension needs the eu on board, it's not, only chance is if May's deal is approved before the request.

I'm just going on what the BBC say to be fair. You seem to be more in the know. If it's heading for no deal then what is Farage playing at with this new party? just showboating? perhaps. i think he'd love it to go to the elections though.

[stevie harkness]

Well this is a game changer.

Now it seems there will be no Brexit after all.

3 years of shite but at last it's all over.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/uri-geller-promises-to-stop-brexit-using-telepathy?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3tqiprr5EWg07NnTHazk0siSvbAQArU0GK3xOVe fotKD4hQQ1mK-upJzY
Illusionist Uri Geller has told Theresa May he will “not allow” her to lead Britain out of the EU.

In an open letter to the prime minister, the Israeli-British TV personality said he felt “psychically and very strongly” that most Britons were anti-Brexit and promised to stop the process telepathically. He wrote: “I feel psychically and very strongly that most British people do not want Brexit. I love you very much but I will not allow you to lead Britain into Brexit. As much as I admire you, I will stop you telepathically from doing this – and believe me I am capable of executing it. Before I take this drastic course of action, I appeal to you to stop the process immediately while you still have a chance.”

[stevie harkness]

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

[Balinkay]

@CCTV

as I've explained in detail, once you've gone down the road of referendums, you're stuck there imo. You have to continue. The precedent has been set. That's why I don't think a third vote would be disastrous. Obviously not having one would be a better option, but considering the absurd zugzwang in which the UK finds itself, I'm just looking for the least horrible option.

And I don't get the whole EU image complaint. I pay taxes to the EU. I want the EU to protect my interests first. The UK wishes to stop paying taxes to the EU. I would be somewhat annoyed if the EU were to put the interests of UK citizens before mine.

Why is support for continued trade between nations not how you build peace and democracy? Trade is bedrock of modern human civilisation. Surely mutually beneficial trade agreements are good for everyone?

On a more starry eyed romantic teen vain - it's only natural that Germany is pushing for more influence in Europe. They're big, rich and never got to rule the world unlike Spain, France and the UK. They feel left out! :D

[CCTV]

I'm just going on what the BBC say to be fair. You seem to be more in the know. If it's heading for no deal then what is Farage playing at with this new party? just showboating? perhaps. i think he'd love it to go to the elections though.

I'd say hes preparing for the European elections if Brexit isn't delivered and possibly the next general election too.

[Balinkay]

Was there really a march of "a million" people in London against Brexit or is it just propaganda?

[stevie harkness]

Was there really a march of "a million" people in London against Brexit or is it just propaganda?

Don't know, wasn't there but alleged video footage from a helicopter did look pretty impressive. The march for brexit reportedly managed 200 odd but that was probably just propaganda!

[Balinkay]

I did see that video and it was mighty impressive, but I can't really tell if it was 50k or 1000k people.

Can you imagine what an occasion it would be if we ever win the league?

[stevie harkness]

There will probably be a march in Manchester to protest!

[Balinkay]

There will probably be a march in Manchester to protest!

I'm confused. Protest agains or in support of Brexit?

[stevie harkness]

I'm confused. Protest agains or in support of Brexit?

Against us winning the league!

[Balinkay]

Thought they'd all stay home behind their keyboards and moan how we were lucky and the refs helped…

[CCTV]

@CCTV as I've explained in detail, once you've gone down the road of referendums, you're stuck there imo. You have to continue. The precedent has been set. That's why I don't think a third vote would be disastrous. Obviously not having one would be a better option, but considering the absurd zugzwang in which the UK finds itself, I'm just looking for the least horrible option. And I don't get the whole EU image complaint. I pay taxes to the EU. I want the EU to protect my interests first. The UK wishes to stop paying taxes to the EU. I would be somewhat annoyed if the EU were to put the interests of UK citizens before mine. Why is support for continued trade between nations not how you build peace and democracy? Trade is bedrock of modern human civilisation. Surely mutually beneficial trade agreements are good for everyone? On a more starry eyed romantic teen vain - it's only natural that Germany is pushing for more influence in Europe. They're big, rich and never got to rule the world unlike Spain, France and the UK. They feel left out! :D

1) After 2 years of Brexit bashing and political incompetency the polls show that there is pretty much the same state of affairs at play. Another referendum would merely add to the division within the UK. It could well be a moot point as Europe via Germany France and Italy seems to have decided an extension is not in their interests. Its unlikely they'll permit another referendum and the inevitable one that would follow. May's deal or no deal with no peoples votes.

2) I gather you didnt look at the video on statins etc and the abysmal state of medical science now within the eu and wider scientific community. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/01/15/medicine-or-mass-murder-guideline-based-on-discredited-research-may-have-caused-800000-deaths-in-europe-over-the-last-5-years/amp/
"Updated)– Last summer British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year. Now they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,00 people in Europe over the last five years. The finding, they write, “is so large that the only context in the last 50 years comes from the largest scale professional failures in the political sphere.” The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history..... The earlier paper demonstrated the potentially large and lethal consequences of the current European Society of Cardiology guideline recommending the liberal use of beta-blockers to protect the heart during surgery for people undergoing non cardiac surgery. The guideline was flawed because it was partly based on unreliable research performed by the disgraced Poldermans (who also served as the chairman of the guideline committee). This may seem like a highly technical question but it effects many millions of people and may, as Francis and his colleagues have demonstrated, led to many thousands of unnecessary deaths. The new article, the first of two parts, makes no new scientific claims, but instead begins to consider the broader implications of the story. Cole and Francis briefly consider the dilemma of clinicians who may “feel unable to act in contravention of guideline recommendations recognized as ‘state-of-the-art’ by the European Society of Cardiology” and who may even be penalized for failing to follow guidelines....They note that more than half of the lives lost– potentially more than 400,000– may “have occurred after the research was discredited,” though some of the damage may have been mitigated if doctors changed their practice after reading about the controversy. (There was a 2 year delay after the start of the Poldermans affair until the ESC withdrew the beta-blockade recommendation.) Cole and Francis argue that much needs to be changed in the application of medical research:....In the second part of their article, to be published in two weeks, Cole and Francis will raise the possibility that the responsibility for misconduct lays not just with misguided researchers like Poldermans but also the institutions and the institutional leaders that provide uncritical support to research factories. Further, they will discuss the role of journal editors and, even, journal readers" Theres a bit more on this page and in the comments.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/29/amp/beta-blockers-death.aspx
"European doctors may have caused as many as 800,000 deaths in five years by following a guideline to use beta-blockers in non-cardiac surgery patients—a guideline based largely on discredited science The discredited researcher, who was fired for scientific misconduct in 2011, was also the chairman of the committee that drafted the European treatment guideline Recent research found that simply eating an apple a day might help prevent cardiovascular-related deaths in those over 50 to a similar degree as using a daily statin Even if a drug or treatment is "backed by science," this in no way guarantees it is safe or effective. Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective.......... When flawed research is used as the basis for medical guidelines, people that shouldn't die do... All in the name of increasing profits to the drug company with reckless abandon and little to no concern for the casualties............... Most people assume that scientific integrity is somehow assured; that there are safeguards along the way, preventing fraudulent research from harming patients. Unfortunately, scientific misconduct has become a very serious and widespread problem that threatens the entire paradigm of science-based medicine—unless changes are made. Again and again, papers assessing the prevalence of scientific fraud and/or the impact this is having shows that the situation is dire and getting worse. In short, we have lost scientific integrity, and without it, "science-based medicine" is just a term without substance. Conflict of interest is another pervasive problem within the research field, and the featured article highlights a case that contains both. Beta-blockers are drugs commonly used in the treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. They work primarily by blocking the neurotransmitters norepinephrine and epinephrine (adrenaline) from binding to beta receptors, thereby dilating blood vessels, which reduces your heart rate and blood pressure. Until recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) also recommended using beta-blockers in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A recent article in Forbes Magazine1 highlights how medical guidelines based on questionable science may have resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of patients in just a few years: "Last summer, British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year,2" Larry Husten, editorial director of WebMD professional news, writes. "Now, they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,000 people in Europe over the last five years3... The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history." Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths The paper, originally published in the online version of the European Heart Journal,4 is a testament to the dangers of modern medicine, and why scientific rigor needs to be reestablished as the norm. As I've discussed before, scientific misconduct by medical researchers affects real people, living real lives. It could affect you. When flawed research is used as the basis for medical guidelines, people that shouldn't die do... All in the name of increasing profits to the drug company with reckless abandon and little to no concern for the casualties. The issue goes back to research done by Don Poldermans,5 a cardiovascular researcher in the Netherlands, who was fired for scientific misconduct in 2011. Some of the strongest evidence for the European Society of Cardiology's (ESC) guidelines on beta-blocker use in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery came from Poldermans' DECREASE trial. It's well worth noting that Poldermans was also the chairman of the committee that drafted the guideline (he has since resigned from his position with the task force6). While his DECREASE trial has not as of yet been retracted, the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam stated7 he was fired because he was: "…careless in collecting the data for his research. In one study, it was found that he used patient data without written permission, used fictitious data and that two reports were submitted to conferences which included knowingly unreliable data." You would think that once this was known, immediate action would result. However, it took two years before the ESC withdrew the beta-blocker recommendation once the Poldermans scandal had unraveled. This is absolutely scandalous as nearly a half of a million people died unnecessarily due to the delay. In that two-year span, many European clinicians may have felt that their hands were tied, as failing to follow guidelines can lead to being penalized—even if the doctor knows the guidelines are likely to do more harm than good. As reported by Forbes:8"
Theres a lot more on this page^^^

NHS costs rocket. In the mercola piece they propose from research that the over 50 population eating 1 apple a day would essentially reduce as many deaths as 17 million Brits taking 1 statin a day. The whole talk looks at this area dealing with big food and big pharma, misleading representation of statistical benefits and risks to patients, declining standards within the community....

1) Society is struggling under rising inequality.
2) Economies have been dying with austerity, unemployment high and access to credit notional for many in the euro.
3) Banking oversight beyond a joke.
4) The euro currency likewise a disaster for the EU.
5) Medical science and research has lost its credibility. Same in other areas, VW and ecology findings a high profile case.
6) Politics, press and police no trust in them really.
7) Building a eu army which will offer a military threat to the USA (not a very clever move imo-remember the cold war), which no one really wants bar eu officials who believe it is the best way to compete with Russia & America (their NATO partners) - The euro bloc or the United states of Europe essentially. The cure to big blocs more bigger blocs
8) Macron vetoing an extension unless May's deal is approved, Italy perhaps or likely to veto an extension if its approved. Following on from their dispute, some interesting points made here https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/france-withdraws-ambassador-to-italy-in-major-shift-to-postwar-european-politics/2019/02/07/8f9c479f-34a7-4b67-85a8-758641014e67_story.html
The eu is destroying itself and increasing conflict between nations
9) the oversexualisstion of children since the 1980s onwards. The answer further oversexualisation of children.
10) the strategic underproduction of food and the wilful destruction of massive tonnage of excess foods which meet industry standards - while famine and malnourishment are common place still to this day. EU policy.
11) the grandstanding on accepting displaced persons is appalling imo, while the underlying ideology in power is driving this rise and well above the global population growth. 1in100 persons displaced around the world today by un statistics. You can follow the rise over recent decades. Accepting migrants is a naturally empathetic response, but using this empathy to ignore the drastic increases in such people being produced is sick.
Europe's migrant problems stem from failed states in the largely Muslim countries. Iraq - ISIS, Afghanistan- massive increase in heroin production, Libya- slave trade, Yemen- Saudis bombing fishing villages armed by USA France & Britain, Syria- Saudis trying to instill a pro-pipeline regime which will provide fuel for Europe. John Kerry who lost to Bush openly stating in Congress in recent years (maybe senate) that the Saudis will pay for the USA to do their thing in Syria, regime change. Security forces estimate 15-25% of Syrian/Islamic refugees support ISIS on some level.
Theres not a single case of terrorism in Europe that I am aware of that has occurred in a nation which hasnt intervened in an associated territory. We see a willingness to surpress media reports on crimes whereby the justification is to prevent further retaliations. I'd say this is a grave error as the supression of such crimes when they become revealed lead to a further risk than the one purported to be prevented. It's a strategy which can only succeed by keeping stories like rotherham et al secret, we see authorities try this very tact. I think it is a sick minded strategy.
If it was being ventured in the catholic child sex abuse scandals I think it would be more easily seen for the sickness it is, lets supress stories of priests molesting and raping minors so as to prevent a backlash against a cohort within our society.

If this is Europe protecting your/our interests, what are our interests exactly?

[CCTV]

@CCTV* as I've explained in detail, once you've gone down the road of referendums, you're stuck there imo. You have to continue. The precedent has been set. That's why I don't think a third vote would be disastrous. Obviously not having one would be a better option, but considering the absurd zugzwang in which the UK finds itself, I'm just looking for the least horrible option.* And I don't get the whole EU image complaint. I pay taxes to the EU. I want the EU to protect my interests first. The UK wishes to stop paying taxes to the EU. I would be somewhat annoyed if the EU were to put the interests of UK citizens before mine.* Why is support for continued trade between nations not how you build peace and democracy? Trade is bedrock of modern human civilisation. Surely mutually beneficial trade agreements are good for everyone?** On a more starry eyed romantic teen vain - it's only natural that Germany is pushing for more influence in Europe. They're big, rich and never got to rule the world unlike Spain, France and the UK. They feel left out! :D**

3) They are potentially, but not when they are used to manifest coercive control over independent nations to apply pressure on other nations within the eu.* Similarly you could explain why there is so much resistance to the UK having the same access to the market, without subjecting itself to political and economic rules from the eu/Germany.*Arguably the aim of control is more evident as an intent than peace. We see this same corruption in other regions.**

4) Yes it's a rather predictable state of affairs, history repeats itself. Germany seeking to gain further economic and political control of Europe, brings Europe to the brink with two fronts now in Europe one with Britain and the other with Russia. They've brought in a lot of ethnically different displaced persons too who had a bad image. While trying to raise an eu army to antagonised the yanks. What could possibly go wrong ?***

It amazes me how since intervening in Syria, the correct course of action even if its motives were not wholly moral Russia has become a major player in western media and politics.* It entered Syria assisting Assad and hammered ISIS. It probably did this to protect it's own interests. The Syrian conflict essentially could boil down to a pipeline and supply of gas to Europe. This has more merit imo than concerns over human rights.* John Kerry who lost to George W can be found on YouTube speaking to Congress (maybe senate) where he explicitly says the Saudi's will bankroll any American actions so long as they do their thing in Syria- regime change. Advertised as a compassionate intervention of course due to a concern over human rights, paid for by Suadi Arabia. Whie Saudis drop cluster bombs on fishing villages in Yemen declared a humanitarian crisis. Similar oil interests in Venezuela on the board too now. With elements like Twitter now reporting that Venezuela is responsible for some Russian bots.**

Poor Russia can only influence minds to vote in elections, not change its perceived status. Now losing this slight power to Venezuela.

https://dailystormer.name/twitter-admits-they-misidentified-russian-bots-says-theyre-actually-venezuelan-bots/
https://dailystormer.name/twitter-admits-they-misidentified-russian-bots-says-theyre-actually-venezuelan-bots/

[Balinkay]

Hold on CC, didn't you proudly proclaim a few days ago on here that you predicted Brexit in spite of all the polls showing it wouldn't happen back then? But suddenly now polls are reliable and mean there's no need for another referendum? In all honesty I do think they're reliable in general, just asking why you had the sudden change of heart.

I still don't get your second point. Some organisation within the EU has apparently made a horrible error (I'll take your quoted text, or the part of it I checked out at face value) and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That's absolutely disgraceful! However, it in no way means that the EU is deliberately trying to act against the best interests of its people. Mistakes happen; horrible ones at that. But as you can see, when the research was discredited, the organisation acted and amended their recommended procedures. What would you have them do? At the moment a suggestion comes in that some research is wrong just immediately invalidate all the guidelines based on it without looking at it carefully? These things take years. In this case the slowness of the process caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. That does not mean the process is inherently wrong. Take vaccines for example - it takes in excess of ten years from the moment a vaccine is created to the moment the population starts receiving it. A lot of people die because of that. But there's a reason for it - you have to be supremely careful with this stuff. Obviously at some point here someone wasn't and heads need to fly. ASAP. But that in no way shows the EU is working against the interests of its citizens.

This part really got me:


Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective.

Yes. It does not. What would you have them do? Not put new treatments through their paces and just allow them to be used willy-nilly by any doctor who thinks they know best?

To summarise - it's horrible if someone based some guideline on bad science and people died because of it. The process of admitting new guidelines must then be improved and made even more rigorous. If this was done to further some company's interests, that's deplorable. Heads must fly. However, the problem with bought research isn't one unique to the research done in the EU, it's actually horrendously widespread. How does leaving the EU fix that? Because then the righteous and incorruptible British scientists will never ever make mistakes or be forced / bought to publish papers that support someone's position?

I understand your frustration and I wholeheartedly share it on this issue. I really do. It's, however, not obvious to me that this shows that the EU deliberately works against the interests of its people more so than any other form of government.


As for your next points: what society is dying with inequality? Because in that TED talk you linked a few pages back countries like Germany, Belgium and Denmark were among the most equal in the world.

I don't know enough about the Euro to comment.

Yes, the VW (and Daimler btw, a mate of mine who works there told me they're in some deep shite) scandals are horrible. Are they a direct consequence of the existance of the EU? There have been far worse automotive scandals (non-recalls of something like 200k Chevys with fucked up breaks I think, don't quote me on that) outside of the EU in similarly developed countries. This doesn't seem like an exclusive problem, though I could be wrong.

As I said, I'm fairly certain a lot of science is losing credibility across the globe. Ditto the press and government - just take a look at the US.

I don't understand your views on globally displaced persons. Do you want the EU to not take in refugees at all? Or do you want the EU to somehow make people stop reproducing quite as much in certain parts of the world?

I wholeheartedly agree about the Rotheram cover ups. Despicable. It only makes the problem worse. Was this mandated by the EU? Ditto pedo-priests?


I think it's quite simple why the EU wants to make leaving it sting the UK. Because it's better for the EU and the countries in it this way. Why should it protect the interests of UK citizens? Obviously the EU thinks it's in a good position to get what it wants, looking more and more likely that's not the case.

The antidote to big block is indeed more big blocks. Divided we fall and united we stand. That's one of the reasons Europe was at peace (mostly) between the Napoleonic wars and WWI. The Concert of Europe and the brilliance of the diplomats of the era. That being best epitomised by Bismarck in the latter part of the period. Build up your own strength, construct a web of alliances that ensure any war unfavourable for the aggressor, sit back and enjoy your schnapps.

By the way, CC, thanks again for talking to be about this stuff. I really am learning a lot and getting a much better picture of the role the EU plays in my life. :) Don't mistake my reluctance to accept your anti-EU positions as being against them. As I've said all along, there are a lot of good reasons to not like the EU, I just want to understand more about them. Preferably without having to put too much time into it, which is where you come in. :D Again, thanks for that. If we ever meet each other irl, I'll buy you a beer.

[dicko1969]

Nearly 6million signatures.
Generally means people are not too happy about the situation.

People's vote.

[CCTV]

Hold on CC, didn't you proudly proclaim a few days ago on here that you predicted Brexit in spite of all the polls showing it wouldn't happen back then? But suddenly now polls are reliable and mean there's no need for another referendum? In all honesty I do think they're reliable in general, just asking why you had the sudden change of heart.

The polls are unreliable. If you look at the environment and the polls and what we know about polls generally, I have confidence in my claims.
The polls indicate marginally a remain vote would win as it was prior to the referendum. What I'm saying is such a conclusion is flawed again, even taking the polls on face value it shows the leave support hasnt dwindled like anything remain claims (nor in previous EU referendums). Give it to the people and the winners become active. The winners nearly always tend to abscond from debating the issue after the victory, they've won after all. The losers persist as they've lost. This reality (2 years of continued remain campaigning and Brexit bashing) and the bias inherent in polling leads me to my interpretation. I'd say I'm consistently discrediting a base reading of the polls.

Imagine the platform and ammo Farage would have since the Brexit vote.
The idea that people didnt realise they were leaving the eu was debunked in 2016.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Jb-fmFfiU
I can put up a similar one with nick Clegg getting the same treatment. I posted earlier in the thread there are lies on both sides. I also stated I'm not here to defend Farage (entirely) but to show why I would have voted for Brexit or at the least defending such a position. The eu army was purported by remain campaigners as a lie throughout the debate, it clearly is not a lie.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-47693645
These polls show that both remain & leave think both the eu & UK government have been very poor at their job. Both believe politics has failed them in these negotiations.
On the matter of having a referendum with remain as an option, a majority oppose this idea, with a 9 point lead over those who support.



I still don't get your second point. Some organisation within the EU has apparently made a horrible error (I'll take your quoted text, or the part of it I checked out at face value) and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That's absolutely disgraceful! However, it in no way means that the EU is deliberately trying to act against the best interests of its people. Mistakes happen; horrible ones at that. But as you can see, when the research was discredited, the organisation acted and amended their recommended procedures. What would you have them do? At the moment a suggestion comes in that some research is wrong just immediately invalidate all the guidelines based on it without looking at it carefully? These things take years. In this case the slowness of the process caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. That does not mean the process is inherently wrong. Take vaccines for example - it takes in excess of ten years from the moment a vaccine is created to the moment the population starts receiving it. A lot of people die because of that. But there's a reason for it - you have to be supremely careful with this stuff. Obviously at some point here someone wasn't and heads need to fly. ASAP. But that in no way shows the EU is working against the interests of its citizens. This part really got me: Yes. It does not. What would you have them do? Not put new treatments through their paces and just allow them to be used willy-nilly by any doctor who thinks they know best? To summarise - it's horrible if someone based some guideline on bad science and people died because of it. The process of admitting new guidelines must then be improved and made even more rigorous. If this was done to further some company's interests, that's deplorable. Heads must fly. However, the problem with bought research isn't one unique to the research done in the EU, it's actually horrendously widespread. How does leaving the EU fix that? Because then the righteous and incorruptible British scientists will never ever make mistakes or be forced / bought to publish papers that support someone's position? I understand your frustration and I wholeheartedly share it on this issue. I really do. It's, however, not obvious to me that this shows that the EU deliberately works against the interests of its people more so than any other form of government.

Is the eu responsible for the eu region ? If not who is responsible for standards across the eu.
What interests of its citizens are of concern to you ?

I think if you watched the presentation you'd drop many of your questions.
It took 2 years after after research had been exposed as fraudulent, unethical and based on manufactured data for the institution to withdraw recommendations made by itself.
2 years is an unacceptable time in dealing with this specific example.
Dont follow guidelines we produced and revert to the guidelines prior to this alteration made by us based on one of our own members on discredited and fraudulent research.
To me it seems you are offering a dogmatic defence of science and an excuse the eu doesnt deserve.
If you look at the other issues brought up in the presentation. Then it is rather fair to say this is an institutional abuse across this wide area with people aka European citizens as the main victims.
If the British leave the eu they wont be immune to these same issues. However they will set their own standards. Standards that have been on the slide for some time.


As for your next points: what society is dying with inequality? Because in that TED talk you linked a few pages back countries like Germany, Belgium and Denmark were among the most equal in the world.

Yes they are amongst the most equal. Looking at the trends over time there is a significant and steady increase since the mid 1970s however. The only exceptions have been in recent years with scandanavian countries where they have reversed the trend. I might need more to explain this to you as I see it. The simplest way I can caricature your view here is to suggest that while declining belief or trust in democracy is a persistent phenomena around the world the eu has Germany & Ireland on a high score. What problem ? They are amongst the most trustworthy. This is not an acceptable argument to discredit the problem of declining trust in democracy across Europe or the wider world. There not equivalent examples but it's the best way for me to put it.


I don't know enough about the Euro to comment.

I've offered up resources which can begin to introduce to the euro currency disaster. You are entitled to remain skeptical without much or any understanding. This isn't a dig at you but it seems to be a rising position in modern society

Overall I think you've been best placed to moderate this thread, but you haven't really questioned any statements of facts from others. I think you're fair enough Bali, but it seems others can post claims without question.

On the matter of science you deflected as far as I'm concerned to suggest the eu isn't the cause as it's happening worldwide. I think that is unacceptable and merely shows the eu facilitates it also within the eu.

Here on the currency issue we have a topic that is the institutions Express wish to create a currency and you dont know much about it.

The euro has been a disaster and was a bad idea to begin with tbh. It would be too harmful to the institutions desires to scrap it so let's carry on regardless and see the eurozone collapse. When banks went bust nations nationailsed bank debt so as to prevent the complete collapse of the banking and euro system in Europe.
EU protecting your interests via the euro ?

I'd be surprised if the eu even has pieces that suggest the euro has been a success.


Yes, the VW (and Daimler btw, a mate of mine who works there told me they're in some deep shite) scandals are horrible. Are they a direct consequence of the existance of the EU? There have been far worse automotive scandals (non-recalls of something like 200k Chevys with fucked up breaks I think, don't quote me on that) outside of the EU in similarly developed countries. This doesn't seem like an exclusive problem, though I could be wrong. As I said, I'm fairly certain a lot of science is losing credibility across the globe. Ditto the press and government - just take a look at the US.

Again you might say what the eu is exactly? What are our interests ?
What is its remit ?


I don't understand your views on globally displaced persons. Do you want the EU to not take in refugees at all? Or do you want the EU to somehow make people stop reproducing quite as much in certain parts of the world?

I would argue the EU is complicit in creating refugees and migrants.
The number of displaced persons has risen drastically since the 1970s onwards. Even against global population growth.
We seem to have a self serving and ego boosting schema around migrants/refugees.
A Syrian refugee arrives in Europe, taking in these people is worn like a badge of honour.
Refugees are a terrible symptom. Refugee pride is a rather sick status imo.
So let's look at what you need to be holier than thou about accepting refugees. You need other people to be living in dire poverty or fleeing from a conflict zone.
The only sane approach is to wish and aim for 0 refugees/displaced persons, idealism sure but that is the aim at least. There is no data which suggests we are even going in that direction, at all or even closely. It is not a target !!
So we know displaced persons offer cheap labour and can fill up lower paid jobs in the economy. Some of Merkel's big compassion was to service her economy.
We know as well that in the main you are importing more liberal types than conservatives. This tilts the demographic composition in Europe towards liberals and robs their liberalism from their native lands.
So the holier than thou grandstanding requires other regions to be hell-like, they are an economic benefit to us and very likely are being used by 1 of the 2 dominant political ideologies to tilt demographics in their favour while antagonizing your opposition who has a different value system. The world is producing more and more displaced persons.
If you look at London's ethnic composure traditional British whites are now a minority in their capital city. If you are using multiculturalism to dominate your own culture politically I think people can see through your pretense fairly easily. Most liberals would be appalled at such a suggestion, but some liberals are only too aware of such implications. History shows it only takes a few insidious sorts to dupe a mostly decent base.
If you look at the haidt post at the outset and game theory you can then ask what way has the eu tilted the outlook in this area.


I wholeheartedly agree about the Rotheram cover ups. Despicable. It only makes the problem worse. Was this mandated by the EU? Ditto pedo-priests?

No but we see the same institutional abuses across each instance. The right coarse of action is not taken so as to protect the respective churches, their authority, image and doctrine.
In rotherham et al the fear of being called racist led to authorities not doing the right thing. It challenged the teachings of multiculturalism and its authority. It's the same in Sweden and Germany they've suppressed stories from the media and tried to dissuade people from a reality. One that inevitably breaks out and has done.
You can look into the area of oversexualisation of children as another unchecked issue for children's welfare.
Here in Ireland the child protection measures for kids in state care is still a joke. With some horrific stories. My opinion on over here is theres a lot of hatred for the church on this criminal activity, justified too. But there isn't that much concern or anywhere near the import on childrens welfare and protections. I'll spare posting details within this area.

[CCTV]

I think it's quite simple why the EU wants to make leaving it sting the UK. Because it's better for the EU and the countries in it this way. Why should it protect the interests of UK citizens? Obviously the EU thinks it's in a good position to get what it wants, looking more and more likely that's not the case.

You argue below that building a big bloc is essential. I disagree. How do you think alienating the Brits serves the eu well? Is treating them poorly going to benefit the unity within Europe? The only logical reason for doing so is to preserve the institution. To terrify other member states from leaving, though that may be illegal for a euro using nation. Isolating the best army in Europe whose closest ally is America having antagonised Russia in recent years is not a particularly good idea. look at global armies, the USA stands out as the biggest, most powerful by far. If Britain leaves eu will have 2 of the 10 more important armies in the world. If we need an army for security purposes what is the benefit of isolating britain -Europe's most strategically important army. Why for the sake of removing/adding tariffs would you risk antagonizing the British via trade ?


The antidote to big block is indeed more big blocks. Divided we fall and united we stand. That's one of the reasons Europe was at peace (mostly) between the Napoleonic wars and WWI. The Concert of Europe and the brilliance of the diplomats of the era. That being best epitomised by Bismarck in the latter part of the period. Build up your own strength, construct a web of alliances that ensure any war unfavourable for the aggressor, sit back and enjoy your schnapps.

We need a bigger block so as to prevent America (NATO partner) or Russia from invading Europe and starting another war. They are held up as being less than Europe, but we need to become more like the use or usse paradoxically. It's an interesting perspective if not one that's deeply flawed in a philosophical sense. Again we can examine what is the eu ? What is its charter and what is it delivering and responsible for ?
I'd argue the euro was a key move in us trying to become like the USA. It has gone badly for us, as ever with eu politics we'll carry on regardless of the damage these institutional desires deliver.


By the way, CC, thanks again for talking to be about this stuff. I really am learning a lot and getting a much better picture of the role the EU plays in my life. :) Don't mistake my reluctance to accept your anti-EU positions as being against them. As I've said all along, there are a lot of good reasons to not like the EU, I just want to understand more about them. Preferably without having to put too much time into it, which is where you come in. :D Again, thanks for that. If we ever meet each other irl, I'll buy you a beer.

Might even return the favour;) However I cant help you out to much with the time. If you ain't got it I cant give it to you.

[Balinkay]

@CC

See what you mean about the polls more clearly now. Still don't have enough to agree, but you are definitely closer to the issue than me so you probably know more about the situation in the country.

That video with Andrew Neil was hilarious. I think I'd have passed out from the embarrassment. Some scummy tactics on there. Both sides used scummy tactics. But I'm not sure the video is meant to show anything more than that. I don't it even definitively illustrates that there was a well thought out single position among the leaders of the Brexit movement, let alone the voters?

Agree about the army. Over here in Krautland there's big uproar about them wanting an aircraft carrier. Wether or not the army itself is a good idea is a different matter, the point is that they/we want one.

Regarding interests of EU citizens - the EU is one of several organisations that's meant to protect their interests. Their governments and to a lesser extent the likes of the UN and NATO as. And yes, the EU is probably responsible for regulation within the EU. I'm not sure what you're implying with the question. As for the two year dalay - like I said, it's deplorable if someone did that on purpose just to protect someone's financial interests and heads must fly. I'll try to take a look at your presentation later today and comment on it, as it's seemingly quite pertinent to these issues.

Again, I don't understand your point about equality. If the trend of more inequality is widespread (is it world wide?) and there are countries that follow this trend but are still pretty good in Europe and even some countries that don't follow it at all in the EU, doesn't that suggest that the EU might not be to blame. Again, this probably ties into me not knowing enough about the Euro, if I get round to it, I'll take a look at what you posted. The problem with me just taking you at your word is that you're clearly of the opinion that the Euro is "bad". And you dislike the EU. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all the stuff you posted about it suggests the same. This isn't a dig at you; I doubt any normal person would post something to discredit their opinion when discussing stuff online. So in order to form a comprehensive opinion I'd need to read all the pieces that rebuke the claims made in yours, weed out the sillier ones and post the rest here. That takes time and energy which I'm not prepared to invest right now.

As I've said from the beginning, this thread wasn't started with the idea of me trying to defend the EU agains the eeevil racist bigots who hate waffles and have Union Jack tattoos. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject so I'd like to know more, but don't feel like studying European law for three years. Hell, I'm not even hugely convinced Brexit is a bad idea. I keep questioning you because I know you like to argue online and there's seemingly a hell of a lot I can learn from you.

Answering what the EU's exact role and what it actually does in everyday life for everyone of us is very difficult. Which was one of my original points in the original thread - looked from the outside like a lot of people were voting on something where they had pretty much no idea what that something actually does. Intuitively I would tend do think the EU should help to regulate those German car manufacturer disasters. But they've been discovered and now the responsible parties are going to be punished. Imagine how many of these go unnoticed!

Understand your opinion on refugees better now, cheers. Yes, ideally there should be none but that's not going to happen and yes, your own economic interests should come if not first, quite high up.

Honestly your last point sounds like you just being annoyed at cover ups and ascribing them to the more left leaning nature of the countries in questions's politics these days. That you seemingly think is a consequence of the EU, which is fair enough I suppose. But at the end of the day it's the people voting for their leadership, no? For example Denmark took in the lowest number of refugees in nine years in 2017. I was under the impression that countries had a large say in how many refugees could come in, which is why some, like the UK, took in so few and some, like Germany, took in a lot more.

I'm not sure what oversexualisation of children really is, I'll look into it. Can imagine why you'd not post about it here though. :(

[Balinkay]

Oh, just saw you had another post.

You've explained it rather well - basically "If you want to leave, that's fine, just know that my people are more important than yours now.". If the May deal is as bad for the UK as is being touted and basically turns the UK into a "vassal state of Europe" (words from some UKIP dude) that's surely good for Europe? Or at least better than WTO rules. At the end of the day, it's about making the best out of a bad situation and finding the balance between not annoying the UK so much that they won't help out with security, but still showing strength by holding you positions firm on trade.

Erm, it's not paradoxical. When Persia invaded Hellas in Antiquity a bunch of the city states put aside their differences and came together to fight a common foe. The whole "we need to become more like them" is cheap at best - become more like Russia in what sense? Militarily we probably should. When it comes to gay rights, we probably shouldn't. The US - free speech, probably; impossible student loan, probably not. Somehow suggesting that a closer military cooperation between countries ensures that other outside countries suddenly have more cultural influence over the cooperators looks rather far fetched.

[CCTV]

@CC See what you mean about the polls more clearly now. Still don't have enough to agree, but you are definitely closer to the issue than me so you probably know more about the situation in the country.

That video with Andrew Neil was hilarious. I think I'd have passed out from the embarrassment. Some scummy tactics on there. Both sides used scummy tactics. But I'm not sure the video is meant to show anything more than that. I don't it even definitively illustrates that there was a well thought out single position among the leaders of the Brexit movement, let alone the voters?

Agree about the army. Over here in Krautland there's big uproar about them wanting an aircraft carrier. Wether or not the army itself is a good idea is a different matter, the point is that they/we want one.

Regarding interests of EU citizens - the EU is one of several organisations that's meant to protect their interests. Their governments and to a lesser extent the likes of the UN and NATO as. And yes, the EU is probably responsible for regulation within the EU. I'm not sure what you're implying with the question. As for the two year dalay - like I said, it's deplorable if someone did that on purpose just to protect someone's financial interests and heads must fly.

I'll try to take a look at your presentation later today and comment on it, as it's seemingly quite pertinent to these issues.

Again, I don't understand your point about equality. If the trend of more inequality is widespread (is it world wide?) and there are countries that follow this trend but are still pretty good in Europe and even some countries that don't follow it at all in the EU, doesn't that suggest that the EU might not be to blame. Again, this probably ties into me not knowing enough about the Euro, if I get round to it, I'll take a look at what you posted.

The problem with me just taking you at your word is that you're clearly of the opinion that the Euro is "bad". And you dislike the EU. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all the stuff you posted about it suggests the same. This isn't a dig at you; I doubt any normal person would post something to discredit their opinion when discussing stuff online. So in order to form a comprehensive opinion I'd need to read all the pieces that rebuke the claims made in yours, weed out the sillier ones and post the rest here.


Answering what the EU's exact role and what it actually does in everyday life for everyone of us is very difficult. Which was one of my original points in the original thread - looked from the outside like a lot of people were voting on something where they had pretty much no idea what that something actually does.

Intuitively I would tend do think the EU should help to regulate those German car manufacturer disasters. But they've been discovered and now the responsible parties are going to be punished. Imagine how many of these go unnoticed!

Understand your opinion on refugees better now, cheers. Yes, ideally there should be none but that's not going to happen and yes, your own economic interests should come if not first, quite high up.

Honestly your last point sounds like you just being annoyed at cover ups and ascribing them to the more left leaning nature of the countries in questions's politics these days. That you seemingly think is a consequence of the EU, which is fair enough I suppose.

But at the end of the day it's the people voting for their leadership, no? For example Denmark took in the lowest number of refugees in nine years in 2017. I was under the impression that countries had a large say in how many refugees could come in, which is why some, like the UK, took in so few and some, like Germany, took in a lot more.

I'm not sure what oversexualisation of children really is, I'll look into it. Can imagine why you'd not post about it here though. :(

The way I see the eu is rather simple it is the most powerful level of government for all its member states. Much like you have local government like councillors and more power in parliament. As such it is the highest body of responsibilty for people in the eu and it is a political and economic union.

The eu exists in the wider world. It must deal with other political institutions and trades on the open world economy, as nations do also. I accept and agree with you that many of the issues I raise are global ones. My point here is in asking what does the eu do to protect its citizens and how is it different from the world. To me pro-EU people tend to declare its charter and fail to analyse its performance against its charter. Like it funds science in Europe so we should be really grateful for the science it produces. When science/reserch it produces/funds is a big problem and the area has several predictable issues it is said this is a global problem.
This to me is too biased. Eu good praise eu, eu bad blame the globe. I've listed several areas where analysis shows that citizens welfare is not benefiting as many would declare it to be so. So far I believe I have provided the most details on the Brexit vote and the eu as an entity. You can take my position with a pinch of skepticism but I think I have slightly more of an evidence based opinion on the eu. Might not be right of course because it is more informed.
My own interests into the eu were promted after a discussion with a rather interesting Philosophy & Psychoanalytic lecturer and author.
I being a young adult had a very pro-eu idea as that is what we are taught. Looking into the eu though I've changed my opinion on my looking and examining it more. Again this doesn't mean I have the correct view necessarily.

I posted figures which have not been contested by anyone in the thread yet. They specifically show the 350mill for the NHS as being fictitious/lies. It is the gross amount the UK would pay if it didnt get its 'rebate/discount' it does show however that the UK is a net contributor and was likely to have been more of a net contributor in the coming years.
The UK has helped build up EU states and I think it's a pity to see the UK being treated as it has been for seeking a divorce. It seems to me the eu being a bit SJW has a very different idea of divorce deals for nations than citizens. If we caricature the eu as being the dominant partner of the uk and it is making it very difficult to leave the relationship with threats of financial vulnerability and blaming it for the divorce we'd call that abuse on the personal level and failing to acknowledge it's part in the breakdown.
Weve had our own referendums over here and it is my opinion that in these instances both sides lie on facts/details. One instance in our abortion debate was the number of babies with down syndrome being aborted with reference to the disappearance/cleansing projections via abortions. The pro-life said in the UK it was 94% were aborted, pro-choice said it was only 40% - still above the general rate. I took a little time to find the truth at source. 70% of parents to be take the test to identify down syndrome in the UK, where a result is confirmed 94% abort (I might be a bit off on recall). The other 30% who dont take the test I'd put as a general rate of abortions 10%, it could be 0. Anyway you have a figure of 65.8% or 68.8%(adding on the 3%) let's say that is the range. The true figure roughly speaking is in between both campaigns facts on this issue. I couldn't find the 40% figure anywhere.
I truly believe as standards have declined in science politics etc that referendums/campaigns are no more than a vote grabbing exercise rather than an informing and leave the voter decide, informing oneself is now firmly the responsibility of the voter. Very few people believe politics or the press are honest so the mitigation of such poor campaigning is very few take any on their word.

On Brexit I think it was quite clear what the Brexit campaign was about. Need only look at Farage and the eurosceptics in the conservative party who campaigned for it. To leave the eu or to stay within it. The brexiteers proposal was to leave the eu and become an independent nation once again. The manner or mechanisms were purported that theyd find some trade agreement with Europe. They didnt want to lose trade relationships and believed they could become an independent nation, continue to trade with their EU partners and develop trade deals across the world.
The majority of people who voted to leave would prefer a no deal presently. This option is being refused by parliament and May herself who took it off the table in negotiations and is now trying to force through her deal at a cost. Taking it off the negotiating table was a very poor strategy.
So the winners of the referendum are not permitted to get their preferred outcome on this matter. This is where accusations of betrayal begin. The counter point is that while they won the referendum they didnt win the withdrawl method. But they won a withdrawal and the only method seems to be to bounce out on a no deal. The legal default position.
It is quite disingenuous to try and misrepresent what they voted for. They know what they voted for and it wasnt May's deal. In the UK it was too complex for them to understand in the USA it was the Russians hacked their feeble minds.
The political negotiations as I see it and as polling data shows it is that both UK and EU politics has lived up to its poor standing in the publics mind.

The presentation is pertinent. It touches on trends across medicine/medical research, big food & pharma. Outside of this presentation there are numerous psychological indicators which show that the quality of life is on the decline. We're in regression when you look at the area of public health and living.
The area of oversexualisation of children is similar in that it looks at numerous levels or means of influence that lead to an overall effect. I guess you're familiar with Aristotle's golden mean. Freud had a paper on civilisation which ties in well with this idea in this area. His proposal was that where society was too repressive of the sexual instinct neuroticism would be the disorder in society. Where the repression is too weak the disorder in society is hysteria. In the culture wars society has rebelled against say repression of sexuality. But it has erred too far and now we are suffering from the consequences of too little repression. This is what we are seeing across the wider political spectrum, an imbalance and one seen in our institutions.
Its a huge area which looks at the level of influences in culture and ends with statistics of rape, unwanted sex etc. There are real people who think the bible is the source of sexual violence and porn is harmless. The evidence doesnt support this cultural ideation which is quite common.
There was a program on channel4 recently where mothers were making (directing not featuring in) porn for their children/teens/young adults. I didnt watch it but this is a symptomatic display of the phenomenon in our society as I see it. Mothers wanted to make porn that was suitable for their children as kids as young as say 9 are watching porn on mobiles. They weren't making it for 9 year olds tbc but this was one of their reasons as kids at that age access porn on mobiles etc. Of old masturbation was a sin, today girls getting raped is a frequent top trender in porn - according to one of the mothers who made the porn.
Political aims are to introduce sexual education at ages 6-8 which merely is further sexualising of childhood.
The actual area is far more scientific than my presentation. But I'm trying to keep it short and stay away from areas like increased presentation of young females with tears in their anus/vagina, experiencing unwanted sex etc

If you look at the eu it is driving towards more and more harmonisation of the zone. Unfortunately the zone is actually diverse in economics/politics and falling apart due to this aim. The euro is the institutions desire to produce a United states of Europe, though it does seem to be delivering this through a USSE will. Latest poll shows 40% of French would vote for Frexit.
There was little controversy in the eu till the euro arrived. Nothing of the scale we've seen since, though there have always been opponents to the eu. The eu is aware that really it needs and needed two euro currencies as the zone is essentially made up of two different economies. It took its institutional desire to have a single currency and has tried to force a singular economic and currency model on a region that isn't suited to it.
You can look at traditional markers of economies and see many economies have shrunk under austerity, unemployment issues within the zone, debt ratios increased.
Again we see here an attempt at domination when looking at 2 large cohorts. The eu will lead to one economic model gaining an advantage over another.

Inequality is a separate issue and the trends predate the euro. It is a consistent global phenomena over the last 50 years. Inequality has risen between worlds (1-3) and within nations, the only exceptions are within a few Scandinavian countries over recent years. I've posted a few links to articles and YouTube on this already so not much point in saying more than that here.

I'm not sure what your 2nd last paragraph is about. I cant grasp a coherent idea from it.

On institutions and dominant ideologies it seems the lessons have not been learned. It's the nature of power. The Stanford prison experiment imo is a good example of what has happened in our societies. It seems that the say liberal guards are unaware of the influence their power has had on their behaviour. Power corrupts even the non racist lovely people, you know the new priests. While wolves in sheepskins take advantage of the woolly prestige.

https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html
^^ decent and simple time wise
http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/overview#_ga=2.88470296.2056024488.1553727449-1385023223.1553442139
This second link has an interactive graph.

1975- world population 4.07 billion.
3.6 million people of concern - 3.53 million refugees
2017- world population 7.55 billion
71.44 million people of concern - 19.94 million refugees

I've taken the world population figures from googling.
A little over more than 4 decades where the world population has nearly doubled. There are 5.65 times the number of refugees today.
19.85 times the numbers of people of concern or displaced persons.

Year 2000 - 21.87 million people of concern
Year 2017 - 71.44 million people of concern

If its broke, fix it. If theres a benefit, look at the beneficiary. If there are specific regions where it is prominent, look into those regions.

[CCTV]

Will get back to your second post later.

[CCTV]

Oh, just saw you had another post.

You've explained it rather well - basically "If you want to leave, that's fine, just know that my people are more important than yours now.". If the May deal is as bad for the UK as is being touted and basically turns the UK into a "vassal state of Europe" (words from some UKIP dude) that's surely good for Europe? Or at least better than WTO rules. At the end of the day, it's about making the best out of a bad situation and finding the balance between not annoying the UK so much that they won't help out with security, but still showing strength by holding you positions firm on trade.

Erm, it's not paradoxical. When Persia invaded Hellas in Antiquity a bunch of the city states put aside their differences and came together to fight a common foe. The whole "we need to become more like them" is cheap at best - become more like Russia in what sense? Militarily we probably should. When it comes to gay rights, we probably shouldn't. The US - free speech, probably; impossible student loan, probably not. Somehow suggesting that a closer military cooperation between countries ensures that other outside countries suddenly have more cultural influence over the cooperators looks rather far fetched.

The first paragraph seems to be a continuation of a reply to the first post/reply. Most of it I cant make sense of or connect your point :)

They came together when attacked. Interesting example. We come together when we are attacked.
It seems the actuality is we're coming together now in the eu in case we are attacked, or even to attack as some eu types would like. It's a differnet mindset and one thats more commonplace today.

In 2007 Lisbon treaty 1 which we rejected, the eu army was one of the issues that was pertinent over here. The idea of an eu army has festered for sometime.

The narrative now is the eu wants an army to protect itself from its NATO partner the USA and/or Russia. (NATO is the EU's best army as it has Britain and the massive USA army)

This follows on from trump telling some of the NATO partners they needed to spend more on their military and reach the 2% of GDP target where the USA nearly spends double that amount.
Conveniently this remark from trump would not apply to the UK. France & Germany who are now pushing for the/their eu army are both not spending at 2% of GDP.
Are France and Germany looking to use the eu coffers to pay for their military spend deficit ?
Do you or they think they need to leave NATO with America a declared perceived threat now ?

Youd think they'd thank Britain for committing to the NATO target rate as one of Europes big economies given their fears even.

If America is a perceived threat to the EU-France/Germany and they are vocalising this concern how do you think this is sitting with their NATO partner, the USA. A much bigger economy spending double the target rate.

If you look at the geographic advancements it's hard to argue against the idea that Russia has seen further and further NATO expansion along its borders.

So having had NATO expand towards Russia, the eu treating the UK rather poorly and openly declaring that the USA (the big NATO partner) is a military threat and a good reason for starting up an EU army also, how do you think this is in our interests ?

(Excluding the UK people as you have done so far from European citizenry)

It seems to me that having had the USA, Britain & Russia put an end to Nazi Germany's grip over Europe. France & Germany are antagonizing all 3 while trying to raise a European army and consolidate further European integration/dominance in the political-economical realm.

Go ahead EU-France/Germany build a EU army to rival the yanks who have close ties with the UK who you've treated poorly and see how that works out for you. What will the Americans think when they see you building up an adequate force ?

Playing hardball with Britain via the EU, declaring the USA a threat to some extent already and perhaps continue to declare further dissatisfaction with her, see how Russia might behave differently on the eastern front.

I'm open to big corrections here as I now people are into this stuff. But as it stands presently this is how I see it.
Russia essentially is limited to a very minimal capacity for expansion. Maybe into places where people want or identify as Russian.
America is the main reason they wouldn't want to step on too many toes. The Russians have seemingly decided to intervene in countries where they are requested to provide assistance. Like Syria and potentially Venezuela. It does seem they are a bit fooked off with all the 21st century NATO expansionism, regime change, freedom gifting etc.

Many of the NATO nations peoples are pretty fooked off with these wars/interventions too, the horrific civilian casualties, the loss of soldiers, return of heroin fields in Afghanistan, open slave trade in Libya, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the refugees and displaced persons.

Maybe France & Germany should just stump up the cash themselves. Then use NATO to build some diplomatic relationships with Russia and put an end to the awful increases we are seeing in civilian casualties and displaced persons.

The world problems arent confined to military problems. Armies are needed, but so is diplomacy and political class and tact.

[Balinkay]

Sorry for the late reply.

I'm rather busy these days and these posts take a long time to write, so I'll limit myself to only a few words from now on, if at all.

I'll try to keep it short: no, I don't think Germany and France need to leave NATO or would be dumb enough to do so in the immediate future. The German army is a joke. The French one isn't though. There's an old saying - "A country that does not feed it own army, feeds someone else's". Not necessarily with money or food mind you. For the record, the EU army is not a great idea imo. If the continent were to unite in a single federation, sure. This will likely never happen and if it does, it will take multiple decades. Until it happens, a united army is premature.

However, if you do want to challenge US political influence, you kind of need guns. France and Germany are perhaps being cheeky about who pays for them guns, but they're not wrong in wanting to have them from their point of view. If the EU wants to act like a superpower, it need an army. Whether it should is a completely different matter. I'm not 100% convinced that's the case.

[CCTV]

Thats understandable Bali time is limited, you might answer some questions here when you get the chance

If people think their politicians are slippery, why do they think eu politicians are anything different when they come from the same pool ?

What are our interests as eu citizens?
How is the eu to be measured ?
I'd suggest these two are strongly interlinked.

The first question, I'd posit as blind faith in the eu as an institution as the answer.

The second questions, I've put up a few areas and I think it can't be denied that this is the best metric for measuring the functioning of any political system. The welfare of its citizens.

Look forward to your answers when you get the chance to reply.

[CCTV]

Well what the fook is going on in the UK now ?

Having pledged no deal was better than a bad deal umpteen times and that theyd leave the eu by the 29th of March, Britain is set to remain in the UK until such time as a withdrawal agreement can be agreed upon (:D).
If the deal is not agreed the UK will take part in the European elections.
May having sought a short deal and the eu mooted to prefer a long deal, may got a medium deal. Her extension is set till the end of October. While the 1st of November the next day is the next time a motion of no confidence can be tabled.

[CCTV]

It seems they are giving as much time as she is likely to get from parliament to try and force through a deal. Think she'd be gone if they could table a no confidence bid now.

May says she is hopeful of securing an agreement before the European elections... :D

How will May secure any deal now?

She told her brexiteers to vote for her bad deal and she'd step aside as leader of the party if it passed.

Then under eu advice/orders/wishes she reached out to Corbyn in an attempt to reach cross party agreement as the eu would prefer to tie in both main parties to an agreement.

Corbyn though is looking for a different deal and more importantly a general election. On the face of it no deal looks better than either leaders options imo.

The Tories members are furious as is the parliamentary party. They see the move towards Corbyn as treacherous.

So may has alienated most of her own party and its membership. Has invited in Corbyn to agree a deal that he doesnt think is in his interests to agree to, so as to get an election and better returns.
Yet may remains hopeful and is more confident now than ever of a deal being passed.

About 2 in 3 of Tory voters would prefer a no deal which iirc parliaments only voted agreement was to take it away as an option by a very slim majority - 0.16%.

Labour voters favour leaving the eu from 25-40%. Say 1 in 4.

It looks like there could be about half of the labour&conservatives vote willing to move away from their traditional 2 parties on this big issue. Whether they do and it manifests in seats is a bit beyond me to say really as the UK system seems to be quite good at maintaining their parliamentary seats.

You have nigel's Brexit party now too and UKIP which might also split the leave vote.

Remainers who seem utterly without hope for the future should a no deal Brexit occur are left with a labour party with Corbyn in charge as their hope. Yet Corbyn if elected as primeminister would represent another risk to material wealth and economic prowess. The markets/banks do not like him at all and some investment firms reckon hes likely a bigger risk than a no deal Brexit to the economy. So the remain party whose concerned about no deal Brexit risks are left with a remain Corbyn risk.

Whatever the costs (likely short term) of a no deal Brexit, I think the failure to adhere to the result of the referendum and the law will have a far greater cost than a no deal Brexit.

The fookin state of politics these days, it's a farce and a sham and a farce..
Have to say its utterly bizarre these days

[CCTV]

Anyone see labour & Tories agreeing a deal before European elections? Or by Halloween?

[CCTV]

Even though I'm not a big fan of Will Self he nailed it when he said “every racist and anti-Semite in the country voted for Brexit."

Watch the video of him and Mark Francois, the Tory prick is absolutely clueless.


Fry had shared it on twitter - that Mark character is hilarious. :D

This is evidently wrong ;)

[Balinkay]

Oh come on, he's super funny. :D

Also this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-xLmI352vE

Whatever side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this whole Brexit debacle has given rise to some serious memage. :D

That's reason enough to want it to go on as long as possible.


@CC

sorry I've not been on this thread. I started writing my Master's thesis and properly talking about this stuff with someone as well read up on it as you costs way too much time. Again, cheers for all the info - I understand the Brexit side a lot better now. :)

[CCTV]

Oh come on, he's super funny. :D

Also this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-xLmI352vE

Whatever side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this whole Brexit debacle has given rise to some serious memage. :D

That's reason enough to want it to go on as long as possible.


@CC

sorry I've not been on this thread. I started writing my Master's thesis and properly talking about this stuff with someone as well read up on it as you costs way too much time. Again, cheers for all the info - I understand the Brexit side a lot better now. :)

What's your masters thesis about ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

From 2016
"....29% of multi-culturalists voted to leave, as did 32% of social liberalists, 40% of feminists, 38% of environmentalists and 38% of those who consider themselves pro-globalisation.
Even 21% of those who are pro-immigration voted to leave. A tiny percentage compared to other categories, but still a fifth...."

Might be fun granted, but its counter productive. More blessings from the social media world :)

Same in the states, racists elected trump even in states that voted for Obama twice cause they didnt pick the right white one this time :D

Thought sterling spoke really well recently when he was saying this walking off if racist chants are heard is madness. Fair play to him.

Read a malcom X book in my teens and he spoke eloquently about racist verbal abuse - the dreaded n word. It only triggered him when he wasnt confident and proud of his heritage.
Frankyl had a piece about it too. I digress...

Good luck with your thesis , 100,000 words right?

[Balinkay]

Cheers CC!

It's about using a certain machine learning approach to solve a subproblem of the larger issue known as "drawing graphs in a way humans can understand them". There's no real constraint on the length - roughly 60 pages should suffice, but seeing as my code is also considered part of my thesis, I might get away with fewer. The issue is I'm a shite coder and know nothing about ML. :D

Have heard the Malcolm X thing too. Completely agree. Look at the "ok hand sign" debacle.

Re: memes - I don't think they're necessarily accurate, but I do find them hilarious. Whether or not they're counter productive I'm not sure. I'd lean towards them not harming the discussion.

[CCTV]

Cheers CC!

It's about using a certain machine learning approach to solve a subproblem of the larger issue known as "drawing graphs in a way humans can understand them". There's no real constraint on the length - roughly 60 pages should suffice, but seeing as my code is also considered part of my thesis, I might get away with fewer. The issue is I'm a shite coder and know nothing about ML. :D

Have heard the Malcolm X thing too. Completely agree. Look at the "ok hand sign" debacle.

Re: memes - I don't think they're necessarily accurate, but I do find them hilarious. Whether or not they're counter productive I'm not sure. I'd lean towards them not harming the discussion.

Good luck again with your thesis, are you teaching it how to present data in a discernible manner so it can work across many different/new tasks ?

I dont envy you :D

[Balinkay]

The idea is to get it to solve one concrete problem relatively well and then generalising it, which should be the easy bit.

[CCTV]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=juQLifY4l_0

A funny clip Bali

[Balinkay]

Haha, I know it. It's really cool. :D

[redebreck]

I would say.

Materially. No.
Economics of the individual, perhaps. Politics same ^^^
Psychologically, mental/physical health and societally. Yes.

It depends what you value really. Well being or materialism.
If you live in a city compared with a rural setting, it's likely a bit less worse of a difference perhaps.

No substantive piece alone I can cite here, but this would be my opinion based on reading trends and findings. Whilst it has been related to me by individuals I've met who work in 'crisis management' in the NHS.

For example on average the triangular distance between work, home and social is bigger on average. Such increases in this distance come with known negative consequences.
Couple this say with the broader influence of increasing inequality and I think it is evidently so. You have increasing feelings of isolation, declining levels of trust, these all point to a society in decline imo. There've been improvements in areas but overall a decline.

I'd say the country is richer and the society sicker.

I dont think it is solely related to these terrorist attacks, but where people are posting never a worse time than now to bring children into the world say that this is also connected to the general changes in daily living. Declining empathy per generation of college graduates for example is to be found in secondary schools too.

Primary education is pretty good, secondary school is where the education needs drastic action imo and experience. Colleges need reform too but it's more essential in secondary.


You've lost me CCTV (not for the first time!)

For what it's worth I don't think we have a democracy in Britain, not worthy of the name anyway. The Welsh referendum was a fudge but it turned out okay in the end so nobody talks about it anymore.


The first referendum people were blind.
Ill-informed

Forage's propaganda

1. £350million a day nhs
2. Immigration

Today the Brit public are more savvy about what the vote is about.

If there was a 2nd referendum, when the 2nd referendum happens, Britain will remain.


UK population increase by 10 million in the last 20 years.

Baby boomers , and living age older 80+ yo.

Accounts for 8.5 million people over 20 years (1998 - 2018)

Net migration = 1.5 million in 20 years.

More retired people , means needing more people working to provide pension funds, elderly people services.


Apologies in advance Bali for my incoherent rambling: we can take it in steps or parts, it's a hard topic to break down imo.

Heres an interesting tedtalk (not beyond criticism themselves) on the subject of personality, liberals & conservatives with respect to moral authority from Jonathon Haidt.
It explains nicely a lot of politics today. He speaks very nicely to his audience, cause hes a public speaker of repute and as hes stated before in this era one has to speak very carefully to speak on campus.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
Given years ago the implications of such knowledge has been horribly overlooked in Brexit analysis and in the failed remain campaign and strategy.
The economic arguments from both sides are tenuous and pretty unreliable. If you are for remain or brexit it is very likely that the economic argument had very little hold on you over your affinity with your own personality/self.

Seen Stephen fry narrating some awful pieces on YouTube. He was surprised that those who lived in more diverse areas voted for remain and those who lived in more homogenous areas voted for Brexit. This however is to be expected in a view through lived personality.
Similarly remainers question how could people on benefits or less well paid refuse the status quo. They are the ones who have experienced the rise of financial inequality the most, why should they support a status quo that has furthered their poverty relative to others.

I predicted Brexit and trump elections correctly in the old thread in the off-topic based on such data and analysis.
Despite the polls suggesting there was little chance of it happening. Those who expected remain & Clinton were shocked as they do not understand the area properly imo. Plus journalism surely we can agree is at an all time low?

In time people will understand that remain & Clinton both lost out due to their own campaigning style and lack of understanding. Not only did they fail to convert those who didnt support them, they lost voters in their favour as a result.

That and the decline and death of traditional liberalism are largely to blame for the results. Theres a war in academia presently between those who are mandating reality versus those who are using science correctly to discover reality.

The attacks on little englanders are odd imo. The post ww2 era to the 1970s in terms of wealth distribution or levels of financial inequality is referred to as a golden age in the UK, this should be a liberal goal also. This is a good.

Since the 1970s, more so the 1980s onwards inequality is increasing steadily. The rise in inequality is synonymous with the rise in displaced persons and many more negative consequences, health and societal. The un provide such statistics on displaced persons and the growth rate of displaced persons is well above the global population growth rate. The book affluenza is based on the impacts on society of increased inequality. Its intuitive, fairer and more just societies are the best.

In little Britain a doctor was upper/elite class today 2 doctors (married couple) wouldn't qualify as elite/upper class.
People dont mind a measure of inequality where justifiable but they despise increasing inequality beyond a reasonable limit, everyone should. If you watched that video above you'll see it is one of the 2 common moral authorities imprinted in our nature.

It is odd that in liberal politics today freedom of speech and financial equality are contentious or controversial topics.

Inquality grows within and between nations. This is driving migration and displacement, outside of bombing civilian. If you want less migrants you need less inequality. If you do not want to stop migration, often taken as a last resort, continue with policies that promote inequality.
Analysis of economic policy shows that in the UK inequality has increased under every governemt in the UK over the last 4-5 decades.
Analysis of cuts and handouts from government policy disproportionately impact the poor, young & elderly most. In recession they experience the brunt of cuts the most. In boom or recovery they get the least. Analysis of wealth distribution post the crash shows that pretty much all the economic growth has benefited the top 1%. A fraction of the top1% account for almost all of the economic recovery since the 08/09 crash.
There is a global policy where the only difference between continents is the extent of increaes in inequality and the wealth distribution is starting to look feudal.

I'd have voted brexit on principles. I wouldn't have voted in the USA election.
I do think both results will bring huge progress to our western world. Liberalism might be returned to where it belongs as a consistent philosophy based on principles.

What has Europe become?
Since the inception of the euro which was an ideological desire and not a practical one weve seen power consolidated in Germany. Merkel's is Europe. The euro has benefited Germany the most and has a large part to play in the banking crisis. The policy of the euro has seen ardent capitalist critique the madness of allowing bank debt to be nationalised.
In Ireland we took a hit the Greeks even more. Then the eu called Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain the pigs.

Weve seen the eu criticise China for moving in on "its" fishing territories in Africa. They criticise China for paying the poorest more and giving them a better deal. That sums up Europe and global liberalism today imo. Europe will mandate you pay sky and bt for competition purposes, despise the Chinese for providing it in Africa.

Europe has been far more concerned about Brexit than any violations of international law, like Tony Blair and the fabricated dossiers as concluded by the chilcot report.

The eu is for peace and prosperity, look who they sell arms too. It's not consistent at all. War has been exported out of the region by and large.

If Britain leaves the EU, which is not certain the eu has a great record of overturning elections which go against the institutes desires, then it will certainly be a massive loss. The big fear for the EU is that others join them.

Hi. I've not followed this thread from the start so I've missed a lot of the discussions.
Apologies for the late arrival and so on, what I'd like to know is:
How do you contributors feel about us leaving - are you for Brexit, or against.
Could a poll be incorporated in this thread, or would it need a separate thread?

My own views:
I'm for Brexit. I'm of an age where I've seen us surviving on our own. I saw us enter the Common Market, though I didn't vote.
My reasons for leaving (condensed version):
1 Many/most? politicians in Westminster are corrupt/selfish/greedy. We don't need yet another level of corrupt/selfish/greedy politicians who run the EU.
What do politicians produce/manufacture? Sod all. All they do is move money around and take home huge amounts of money that the countries in the EU
are "contributing".
2 Finances. Of all the countries in the EU, I reckon there's a minority of countries actually contributing. France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the UK
are the countries probably putting the most money in and taking the least out. The UK is one of the few countries/nations propping up the EU.
3 This might cause some arguments among you - migration. Without being in any way racist, I believe the UK is being over-run by having too many people
within its borders. Illegal or legal it doesn't matter - there are too many people in the UK and causing stresses on our NHS and welfare systems to name just
two.

OK, that's my contribution. I'd like to have an idea of how others feel.

[Nineteenx]

Brexit was always and remains a completely shit idea

Tired of hearing the majority voted to leave, as so many of those people have changed their minds over the last 3 years now what it actually means is coming out.

Leave the EU, the single biggest market and where we do the majority of our trade?

Leave the customs Union and incur WTO tariffs of 10% on everything we import and export from countries in the EU? Got to be fucking kidding me, who does everyone think is going to pay for the extra 10%?

The 'stupid' arguments about this country or that country will do a deal with us because they depend on our trade. It's the EU, not a single country in the EU can do an individual trade deal with the UK, every country has to agree with it

What's happened to the Uk is a result of too many years of Toryism, including Blair, probably the worst of the lot because he could and should have provided a turning point away from that and the vast majority of people who voted for him expected him to.

So what has fundamentally fucked the UK, why am I so sure? It's a number of things, mostly the inherent greed of the majority of most of the human race sadly.

First and foremost the mass sale of social housing and failure to replace it couple with the move to removed housing prices from inflation was a major fucking disaster, I said so at the time, I was absolutely livid, I was 12 years old. It does not take a fucking genius to work out where that was going to lead and has.

Reasons for this are social housing was entirely necessary, and a massive program of building social housing is desperately needed. Social housing gave a hell of a lot of people hope, it gave people 'the will' to work shitty low paid dead end jobs, because they could do this, still get a home and raise a family and survive without the need for food banks or perenially stuck in the rental trap.

Removing house prices from inflation while selling social housing with no intention of replacing it was absolutely a very calculated and deliberate act from an egomaniac who was never fit to be Prime Minister. It was designed to divide a greater percentage of society and communities into the have and have nots. I would very obviously quickly drive up the price of housing, it was removed from inflation because it was known this would happen, because millions of council homes across all areas of the country kept house prices from soaring like this for very obvious reasons. It was like a long term Tory insurance policy, people have voted base on their wealth and the value of their housing for a very long time now, people don't want social housing or affordable homes built in their area, the vast majority of home owners don't ever want this, it was a deliberately community and society dividing policy.

The removal of house prices from inflation was also a disaster for UK workers, because they soared as they were obviously going to and this wasn't included in inflation, the standard policy of employees being to look for annual pay rises as near to the level of inflation as possible, it has effectively meant all UK workers have been taking a massive pay cut, working for less and less year on year ever since the fucktards who kept voting the tories in allowed this to happen. I wasn't old enough to vote when any of this happened, I could see it happening and where it would lead, and it made me very fucking angry. A lot of people are to fucking thick to vote, they just shouldn't be allowed, like in the EU referendum, because the ydon't ever actually understand what their vote means.

Even more annoying was my parents voted for the fucking Tories, they voted for them for years, when you argued with them about it their main reasob for voting for them was that under Labour they had a lot of strike action, and they'd always bring up the bin strikes. "You don't know what it was like when the bins weren't emptied for months on end" yeah right and because of people that vote so basically, generations that followed them don't know what it's like to live in a country where 2 people with ordinary traditionally low paid working class jobs, minimum wage now, could buy a house in a decent area in their early twenties raise four kids and manage to fee and clothe them and although things were a bit tight from time to time, never really need or want desperately for anything and live in a UK in which foodbanks were never necessary.

On the subject of inflation, they've been fiddling that for years, it's not enough they got generation after generation working for less year or year on year because of what they did with housing, they took numerous other things from the inflation register to keep it falsely low.

Privatisation was the other major Tory contribution that fucked the UK, it was always a shit idea too and another that really annoyingly I could see straight through as a 12 year old kid, again, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. "It's losing money, it's not sustainable. it needs investment" what a fucking crock of shit, people invest in things to make money, they expect substantial returns on that money, it was always going to end up driving prices sky high (removed from inflation of course) and seeing services the shareholders viewed as reducing their profits reduced or cut altogether.

The NHS can't cope because like everything else that was build out of socialism and the solidarity of a once great britain, it was a cash cow to be milked and privatised to the Tories, and Blair made that even worse with PFP.

Tories loathe the idea of socialism, but they absolute love it for the incredible infrastructure it left for them to make absurd profits from.

Anyway, I digress, I could rant all night about this, but it all boils down to human nature and man's inherent greed combined with capitalism, it's never enough for these people, they want more and more, just pure greed. Same thing with the environment, obsolescence, building things deliberately to break after a certain period of time, to keep the wheels of capitalism turning and the money flowing into the pockets of the people with more money than they could ever spend, the amount of shit we throw away that fucks the environment up because of the inherent greed is unbelievable.

Capitalism is a dangerous, broken and unsustainable model, it will be the end of the us all, it's the uncontrollable greed and it's gone so long unchecked and the American ideal of smashing profit margins year on year being the norm that we honestly don't stand a chance.

[redebreck]

Brexit was always and remains a completely shit idea

Tired of hearing the majority voted to leave, as so many of those people have changed their minds over the last 3 years now what it actually means is coming out.

Leave the EU, the single biggest market and where we do the majority of our trade?

Leave the customs Union and incur WTO tariffs of 10% on everything we import and export from countries in the EU? Got to be fucking kidding me, who does everyone think is going to pay for the extra 10%?

The 'stupid' arguments about this country or that country will do a deal with us because they depend on our trade. It's the EU, not a single country in the EU can do an individual trade deal with the UK, every country has to agree with it

What's happened to the Uk is a result of too many years of Toryism, including Blair, probably the worst of the lot because he could and should have provided a turning point away from that and the vast majority of people who voted for him expected him to.

So what has fundamentally fucked the UK, why am I so sure? It's a number of things, mostly the inherent greed of the majority of most of the human race sadly.

First and foremost the mass sale of social housing and failure to replace it couple with the move to removed housing prices from inflation was a major fucking disaster, I said so at the time, I was absolutely livid, I was 12 years old. It does not take a fucking genius to work out where that was going to lead and has.

Reasons for this are social housing was entirely necessary, and a massive program of building social housing is desperately needed. Social housing gave a hell of a lot of people hope, it gave people 'the will' to work shitty low paid dead end jobs, because they could do this, still get a home and raise a family and survive without the need for food banks or perenially stuck in the rental trap.

Removing house prices from inflation while selling social housing with no intention of replacing it was absolutely a very calculated and deliberate act from an egomaniac who was never fit to be Prime Minister. It was designed to divide a greater percentage of society and communities into the have and have nots. I would very obviously quickly drive up the price of housing, it was removed from inflation because it was known this would happen, because millions of council homes across all areas of the country kept house prices from soaring like this for very obvious reasons. It was like a long term Tory insurance policy, people have voted base on their wealth and the value of their housing for a very long time now, people don't want social housing or affordable homes built in their area, the vast majority of home owners don't ever want this, it was a deliberately community and society dividing policy.

The removal of house prices from inflation was also a disaster for UK workers, because they soared as they were obviously going to and this wasn't included in inflation, the standard policy of employees being to look for annual pay rises as near to the level of inflation as possible, it has effectively meant all UK workers have been taking a massive pay cut, working for less and less year on year ever since the fucktards who kept voting the tories in allowed this to happen. I wasn't old enough to vote when any of this happened, I could see it happening and where it would lead, and it made me very fucking angry. A lot of people are to fucking thick to vote, they just shouldn't be allowed, like in the EU referendum, because the ydon't ever actually understand what their vote means.

Even more annoying was my parents voted for the fucking Tories, they voted for them for years, when you argued with them about it their main reasob for voting for them was that under Labour they had a lot of strike action, and they'd always bring up the bin strikes. "You don't know what it was like when the bins weren't emptied for months on end" yeah right and because of people that vote so basically, generations that followed them don't know what it's like to live in a country where 2 people with ordinary traditionally low paid working class jobs, minimum wage now, could buy a house in a decent area in their early twenties raise four kids and manage to fee and clothe them and although things were a bit tight from time to time, never really need or want desperately for anything and live in a UK in which foodbanks were never necessary.

On the subject of inflation, they've been fiddling that for years, it's not enough they got generation after generation working for less year or year on year because of what they did with housing, they took numerous other things from the inflation register to keep it falsely low.

Privatisation was the other major Tory contribution that fucked the UK, it was always a shit idea too and another that really annoyingly I could see straight through as a 12 year old kid, again, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. "It's losing money, it's not sustainable. it needs investment" what a fucking crock of shit, people invest in things to make money, they expect substantial returns on that money, it was always going to end up driving prices sky high (removed from inflation of course) and seeing services the shareholders viewed as reducing their profits reduced or cut altogether.

The NHS can't cope because like everything else that was build out of socialism and the solidarity of a once great britain, it was a cash cow to be milked and privatised to the Tories, and Blair made that even worse with PFP.

Tories loathe the idea of socialism, but they absolute love it for the incredible infrastructure it left for them to make absurd profits from.

Anyway, I digress, I could rant all night about this, but it all boils down to human nature and man's inherent greed combined with capitalism, it's never enough for these people, they want more and more, just pure greed. Same thing with the environment, obsolescence, building things deliberately to break after a certain period of time, to keep the wheels of capitalism turning and the money flowing into the pockets of the people with more money than they could ever spend, the amount of shit we throw away that fucks the environment up because of the inherent greed is unbelievable.

Capitalism is a dangerous, broken and unsustainable model, it will be the end of the us all, it's the uncontrollable greed and it's gone so long unchecked and the American ideal of smashing profit margins year on year being the norm that we honestly don't stand a chance.

Excellent post, 19X, I can't disagree with much of it.
I saw privatisation in the 80s I think it was, followed by the Tories giving the Financiers in the City of London a free hand to do whatever they want. Long term, this resulted in the financial meltdown we had after the millennium.
Politicians seem to act like extremists. It's like a game to them, and everybody loses except the politicians who carry on coining it whatever happens.
I'm hopeful that the UK will be able to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, outside the EU.
The general public aren't given enough truthful, accurate information about those things we need to know about.
As I stated in my earlier post, we've survived outside the EU and we can do it again.

[Balinkay]

Btw, I keep hearing that some leavers have changed their minds. Is the reverse not also happening?

Also what do you guys think of the milkshakes thrown at people like Farage, Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin?

[redebreck]

Btw, I keep hearing that some leavers have changed their minds. Is the reverse not also happening?

Also what do you guys think of the milkshakes thrown at people like Farage, Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin?

I've not changed my mind, but I can understand others changing theirs, based on the fact politicians have lied and given inaccurate information
(ooooh, that's a fecking surprise!)
Throwing milkshakes (etcetera) - they're lucky that's all they're having thrown at them.
If we have to put up with much more of this shit from politicians and the "establishment" (remember Hillsborough) I firmly believe we could have a revolution/anarchy in this country. It's already happening (to a degree) in France.
p.s. Tommy Robinson - isn't he just trying to make everyone aware of the corruption taking place throughout government/councils/etc?

[Insidious]

Still quietly confident Brexit won't happen.

If it does though, the ensuing mess in Northern Ireland could "encourage" me to leave.

[Balinkay]

@redebreck

I agree it's quite lucky it's still only milkshakes, but I personally find it reprehensible nonetheless.

Regarding Tommy - from what little I've seen of him he doesn't look like the mini-Hitler as whom he is seemingly sometimes described.

[Balinkay]

Still quietly confident Brexit won't happen.

If it does though, the ensuing mess in Northern Ireland could "encourage" me to leave.

You'd always be welcome in the Vaterland. :D

[ianlfc]

Still quietly confident Brexit won't happen.

If it does though, the ensuing mess in Northern Ireland could "encourage" me to leave.

Fuck, If you haven't left by now you'll never leave !!!
Just remember mate with your job you could hop on a plane and start up a business anywhere in the world with out any hassle.
I could see you in somewhere like LA.

[CCTV]

Brexit was always and remains a completely shit idea

Tired of hearing the majority voted to leave, as so many of those people have changed their minds over the last 3 years now what it actually means is coming out.

Leave the EU, the single biggest market and where we do the majority of our trade?

Leave the customs Union and incur WTO tariffs of 10% on everything we import and export from countries in the EU? Got to be fucking kidding me, who does everyone think is going to pay for the extra 10%?

Even more annoying was my parents voted for the fucking Tories, they voted for them for years, when you argued with them about it their main reasob for voting for them was that under Labour they had a lot of strike action, and they'd always bring up the bin strikes. "You don't know what it was like when the bins weren't emptied for months on end" yeah right and because of people that vote so basically, generations that followed them don't know what it's like to live in a country where 2 people with ordinary traditionally low paid working class jobs, minimum wage now, could buy a house in a decent area in their early twenties raise four kids and manage to fee and clothe them and although things were a bit tight from time to time, never really need or want desperately for anything and live in a UK in which foodbanks were never necessary.

On the subject of inflation, they've been fiddling that for years, it's not enough they got generation after generation working for less year or year on year because of what they did with housing, they took numerous other things from the inflation register to keep it falsely low.

Privatisation was the other major Tory contribution that fucked the UK, it was always a shit idea too and another that really annoyingly I could see straight through as a 12 year old kid, again, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. "It's losing money, it's not sustainable. it needs investment" what a fucking crock of shit, people invest in things to make money, they expect substantial returns on that money, it was always going to end up driving prices sky high (removed from inflation of course) and seeing services the shareholders viewed as reducing their profits reduced or cut altogether.

The NHS can't cope because like everything else that was build out of socialism and the solidarity of a once great britain, it was a cash cow to be milked and privatised to the Tories, and Blair made that even worse with PFP.

Tories loathe the idea of socialism, but they absolute love it for the incredible infrastructure it left for them to make absurd profits from.

Anyway, I digress, I could rant all night about this, but it all boils down to human nature and man's inherent greed combined with capitalism, it's never enough for these people, they want more and more, just pure greed. Same thing with the environment, obsolescence, building things deliberately to break after a certain period of time, to keep the wheels of capitalism turning and the money flowing into the pockets of the people with more money than they could ever spend, the amount of shit we throw away that fucks the environment up because of the inherent greed is unbelievable.

Capitalism is a dangerous, broken and unsustainable model, it will be the end of the us all, it's the uncontrollable greed and it's gone so long unchecked and the American ideal of smashing profit margins year on year being the norm that we honestly don't stand a chance.

Great to see an emapassioned post on the matter. What year was it when you were 12 ? I'm assuming its post joining the eu.

Living in Ireland we have very recently had money to build social housing which we also stopped doing. These council houses were built fairly well and like other industries the worst houses built in the country were in the years of boom before this last bust. In 20 years the same houses where I lived appreciated from 30grand to 330grand. While we've had money to build housing the eu is the major reason why we can't build them. The EU says so and thats that due to agreements made, the EU says collect 13 billion from apple in taxes due and they/government object though eventually concede. This is modern politics within the EU - Note this decade long at the time of ruling in 2016 meaning since 2006 at least was conveniently ruled after Brexit.

Over here the disdain for the state having a foothold in housing is still on the rise, more so in institutions of state, banking and the eu. Today there are schemes out there whereby private companies build houses and they lease them to the council for 10 years, after 10 years the private holder can decide if they want to renew the rental agreement or not, or permit the council tenant to enter into a rent to buy scheme. Needless to say I suspect few will decide to permit the council tenant to rent to buy. The 10 year rental costs are paid up front in a lump sum to the developers. This model of long term leasing is praised as progressive and very German like, yet rarely do they state the model in Germany arose to suit cuntish funds who bought up lots of blocks of property after the end of ww2, giving the cunty funds secured long term tenants. You'd end up with no property at the end but will have paid the cost of the property and more in general over your lifetime. It's part of the inequality drive within the eu and attempts to take property away from common people in attempts to dissuade people from having children. Leaving something for kids is typically done via the family home and savings. In our capital city now there are complaints as new modular housing involves rental costs of €1300 euro for a bedroom smaller in area than a disabled car space and 1 kitchen per 42 residents. Outlawed bed sits were far more humane and cheaper. The minister overseeing this has said this young (dumb as fuck) generation are willing to make sacrifices - his father made 2.3million from tribunals in legal costs the only sector to survive mandated cuts and reform. Disabled children funding that's open game, sna's... over one third of all homeless persosn are children and the fastest demographic for sometime now experiencing homelessness are those aged 0-5.

In the rental market tax initiatives have essentially made the landlord market a two tier system and normal private landlords are selling off en masse and larger vulture funds are buying them up. The vulture funds pay a far smaller portion of what the typical private landlord would pay, so we've reduced the tax intake on rental properties also.
While vulture funds are notoriously cuntish in how the treat tenants, breaking rights and getting around rent caps. Though some people have argued that calling large corporate investment funds 'vulture funds' is a demeaning and inhumane label :D Cuntish funds will have to do so. Post the crash we set up nama which has been exposed for assisting interests in securing large amounts of property at the lowest prices. The crash was a property grab. Large swathes of properties were intentionally left unoccupied to inflate rental costs (now above boom while wages are lower thsn then with other increases in costs of living) and restore property prices to peak bubble prices.

I've seen posts before where people break down their income and apportion how much of their money goes to taxation. Income tax, duties, levies, vat, dirt, property, car.... typical earners estimate between 70-80% of their income goes to taxation. Its common for big CEO's to pay less income tax than average employees on average wages. The eu as part of their desires mandated the introduction of water charges in Ireland. Previously increases in taxation had been introduced over the last 30-40 years for water management by governments. They tried to bring it in and it is the sole victory against the states/eu's taxation policy in Ireland, led by people (aka populist scum) and not the traditional parties. There was no effort to return the tax increases which had previously been apportioned for water management either, taxed again. While the water network is in a poor state. Just over half of our processed water is lost to leaky pipes. When you factor in daily consumption and use by individuals and industry that's a lot of processed water lost. The first efforts of the private company set up to manage our water network was to spend money on water meters. Buried under the ground and no real access to monitoring consumption like electricity. The company was also critiqued for spending grandly on office furniture and state of the art furnishings. It's been defeated for now, but it'll come back.

The medical industry has been turned into a cash cow for private enterprises in public expenditure. Today people are stagnating on living longer than before and are simply far more likely to be ageing with more illnesses/conditions than before. People are getting sicker. Increasing the market share of dependants for the medical complex industry. Food industry has been turned into a shitshow with sugar and processed foods having taken over the landscape. Diet today is a greater danger to people in terms of developing illnesses and death than smoking, drinking and inactivity combined ! People who think they are eating healthy are often very misguided. Drug trials are very poor and often do not beat simple changes in diet or incorporating a simple brisk 20 minute walk 3 times a week as a counter option or group. Not that such measures are included in trials. Whilst I posted a link earlier which also details how stents were given to people for no medical reason whatsoever. Just stick them in $$. If you look at psychological measures it's the same story. Time is in short supply and stress is endemic. More recently theres been a new finding of increased rates of anxiety disorders, major depressive episodes and suicides since 2009 and largely attributed to social media and smart phones. Its far more prominent for girls than boys and effects the youngest worst say 9-14 year olds. This many systemic errors and mismanagement puts the probability in the court of design/desired rather than accidental/incompetence. In the case of social media/smart phones it was a known consequence by design and hence few in the industry allow either for their own kids. Its psychotic politics.

Whilst realising that jobs would be lost to automation and outsourcing, new meaningless service industry's were created to occupy the time of citizens. Coupled with an increase in consumerism and extended business hours, 24 hour cultures. This is akin to North Korea giving you scissors to cut the grass just so you are busy. Then more buying stuff to increase profits. However in the eu we dont like to see these things as comparable. Reducing work hours, days commuting to work, hours of commerce would simply give citizens more time for living and a reduced carbon footprint. Time to keep a garden - less need for massive logistical efforts and plastics for carrots etc, to socialise, develop a strong community, spend time with their kids or parents etc. Disgusting stuff I know. You might note that all these have declined under the eu membership. People are isolated and literally dying from loneliness. The art of living is dying out.

Brexit has been wonderful for the eu citizens. Dont forget it's the same individuals who typically score highly in the personality trait psychoticism who leave the national scence to become supra-nationalist politicians. Often sent off after having to leave due to incompetence or corruption. Before it could rerun votes, ignore votes and overrule them by parliaments- still a possibility with Brexit unfortunately. But the idea is out there now, it can be abandoned entirely.

The problem over here and elsewhere is people seem to think it's only their national politics that is to blame, put a few of these in an avengers gang and they'll transform into something superior.

The eu is utterly fucked because it lacked a credible leadership structure. It decided to introduce the Euro which has been a disaster, foreseeable too as the Brits called it, and it failed to break the banking system when it needed to be done. The last banking model was abandoned, this one has been pumped up at the expense of Europe and its citizens. The one the little englanders liked.... It had full/er employment, reduced inequality, council and social housing, a far better medical standard of scientific credibility and science more generally, a decent press compared with the one we've witnessed lately..

Ten years on from the banking crash the banks are still in a dire situation and illegal EU money laundering steadily increases. The eu post Brexit vote has started to realise the game is up. Its started to tackle some issues but rather tamely imo. But at least they're making noises if the are only vain pandering. A lot of the eu noises have come off the back of Brexit as they try and regain its lost image. We can thank the Brits for being the first to walk away from this corrupt entity and as a result it is starting even if only pr to acknowledge its fook ups.
Britain is a huge economy in Europe, with a good education system & high quality universities (relatively). The trade works both ways. Needs must and if the eu wants to punish Britain for leaving the gang it'll do so at some expense. See what they said about trump's tariffs and wonder will they seek to damage trade in practically the same manner. It would be hypocritical which isn't beyond the eu, but it's likely just more attempts to coerce people out of Brexit. It's all a bluff they do this consistently where the people vote against the eu institution. Rerun the vote, inflate fear, force conformity. We've seen it over here too with the extra allegation of literally swapping in ballot boxes. The eu doesnt care for the democratic wishes of nation states. They've an appalling record in terms of crashing ahead with their institutional desires irrespective of whether people want them.

The warnings were made after ww2 and they were spot on. A sick political stewardship and a fetish for profiteering at the expense of humanity. This socio-economic-political model has people worried about their kids futures over a variety of reasons. An increasingly sick Man in a sick World by design.

I'd to cut out some of your post and my own to fit it into the post.

[CCTV]

Btw, I keep hearing that some leavers have changed their minds. Is the reverse not also happening?

Also what do you guys think of the milkshakes thrown at people like Farage, Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin?

From what I've read this first question is best answered with a its false answer. A majority of voters on both sides are more sure than when they voted. The vast majority include as sure, while those less sure than when they voted are unlikely to change their vote. This is without a critical analysis of the means of polling as discussed earlier in the thread or the political climate since the vote.

1in5 people believe it is acceptable to throw milkshakes. Considering this seems to be a largely remain side activity it would suggest somewhere in and around half (40%) of remain voters believe it is ok to do so. There is the possibility that leave voters believe it is permissible also and some are calling for these attacks to be returned in kind. Escalation is a concern.
I've not seen any data on the throwing of rocks, bricks or scissors but I'd guess as the violence increases the levels of support for such projectiles dissipates.

Certain leave members have been warned by the police that they are in danger of being the victim of an acid attack or their families and have creditable risks of being murdered by the love not hate extremist types.

Theres a positive feedback loop occuring at the minute and clear biases in terms of objective reasoning and reporting in the media. It's not very sensible and tbh I'm amazed that there has been such little violence overall.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/UK-England-Manchester-48323573

This is from the BBC. Shouldnt take anyone too long to answer the questions raised and offer a critical review of the piece. Tommy can be located as too the identity of the MDL who travelled from Halifax and its organisation on social media.

The labour rally did not have counter protesters. Counter protesters seems to be a term given to the Muslim defense league and antifa to mislead the reader and keep their names out of the press.
I'd suggest had the edl attended the labour rally and thrown bricks, rocks and scissors at families they wouldn't be called counter protestors.

This is what happens when people legitimise violence on the 1in2 voters who've been labelled racist nazi scum. As pointed out about fry in the pindex videos earlier.

You get the same in the states where whites/blacks/Mexicans will call blacks/Mexicans racist nazi scum because they didnt vote as all black/mexican people are supposed to vote.....

[Nineteenx]

@CCTV it is national government to blame, over much of the things listed as done in my original post that crippled the UK, it was done by the UK government's own choice and not through a mandatory requirement of EU policy, I know this, because I've researched it, I researched a lot about privatisation as 'state owned and run' (big clue in that) public service providers from the EU competed for contracts of privatised UK services, and like you, many of the agitators blamed EU policy for this, but it's entirely untrue as I found when researching it, the UK government had a choice in every single decision I listed.

[Balinkay]

This is what happens when people legitimise violence on the 1in2 voters who've been labelled racist nazi scum. As pointed out about fry in the pindex videos earlier.

This. A thousand times this.

[stevie harkness]

Also what do you guys think of the milkshakes thrown at people like Farage, Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin?

I suppose there's always a chance they've got a lactose intolerance.

[CCTV]

I suppose there's always a chance they've got a lactose intolerance.

Aye more likely their heads cant take a bricking though.

[CCTV]

@CCTV it is national government to blame, over much of the things listed as done in my original post that crippled the UK, it was done by the UK government's own choice and not through a mandatory requirement of EU policy, I know this, because I've researched it, I researched a lot about privatisation as 'state owned and run' (big clue in that) public service providers from the EU competed for contracts of privatised UK services, and like you, many of the agitators blamed EU policy for this, but it's entirely untrue as I found when researching it, the UK government had a choice in every single decision I listed.

I'm guessing your talking about the 1980s and Thatcher ? I've not commented on your piece as a criticism just added to it to show the eu is no different and particularly so these days.

There was a political-economic change in the 1970s that's been seen more steadily since the 80s onwards.
These occupy the various levels of influence whether the national or supra-national bodies.

If you look at the eu and hiring KPMG to report and lead to privatisation it is the same effect at both levels. Increase financial inequality, reduce the wealth portion of poorer persons, transfer wealth to the richest and from state to private holdings. It's quite possible that if you look at societies in tentiles the lowest tenth percent consistently do the worst.

The latest pindex video has a piece where it talks about these new stringent laws for finance and corporates in the eu. Following on from Brexit and other populist scum movements. These new stringent laws will be as effective as the last ones, lip service, the only hope is that post Brexit the EU is trying to save a sinking ship and might actually do something significant. I'm dubious. Suspect it's a face saving exercise before returning to the norm.

The largest described banking system money laundering crisis, 07-15 danske bank, Deutsche bank another example and there are other instances of different scandals endemic across the eu. The 08/09 banking crash should have left the banks go bust, crash and reformed. Money has been pumped into these banks to prevent a reform of the banking system. One commentator saying that 90-95% of the money given to Greece essentially went to banks outside Greece - they gave the Greeks money/debt to pay off debts to foreign banks that should have lost money on such reckless lending. The eu will not permit a private bank to go bust since the euro and its rules and so when they do, they force nations to nationalise debts. Private profits, shared liabilities essentially mandated with the euro currency. This was the EU's Express wish the euro and these rules and they did an awful job of keeping watch over the banks and corporations.
The vw/Audi co2 emissions scandals discovered by the EPA no less, apple tax ruling after Brexit been going on for ages, the scandals in medicine and pharmaceuticals.

Our eu forced private water company, our eu forced fiscal compact. Eu law 1997 iirc, incorporated into Irish law 2012. So now it's not a control from Europe it's a national control introduced and designed by the eu and incorporated by a pathethcially weak government when it comes to dealing with outside authorities.
Not another red cent said the right leaning centrists fg, billions upon billions of brown ones though. The Wikileaks diplomatic cables showed our labour leader saying that their election promises were practically just bollocks to the citizens talk to get elected. Labours way or Frankfurt's way.
Woman labour minister introduced a cut to single mother payments, following years later female suicide matches men in lower ses areas, young mothers aged 18-35 committing suicide at equivalent rates to their Male counterparts is rarely ever seen anywhere. It is thanks to our labour minister in part. I take both side of modern political divides with a pinch of salt.

"So why have the European Commission’s policy makers made privatisation such a central tenet for agreeing to loans to Europe’s indebted countries? The European Commission (EC) in correspondence in 2012 explained it this way: “... privatisation of public companies contributes to the reduction of public debt, as well as to the reduction of subsidies, other transfers or state guarantees to state- owned enterprises. It also has the potential of increasing the efficiency of companies and, by extension, the competitiveness of the economy as a whole, while attracting foreign direct investment.” In other words, privatisation would help countries pay back their debt, would improve the state-owned companies’ efficiency and effectiveness, and therefore would boost economic growth.

But do those arguments stand up in practice? Five years into the economic programmes imposed by the EC, Transnational Institute in its report The Privatisation Industry in Europe decided to examine the evidence. Its conclusions cast serious doubt on the EC’s rationale. It found that the sales of state-owned assets during recession have consistently failed to raise expected revenues. Greece for example was predicted to raise €50 billion but has so far raised a paltry €3.5 billion. This may be partly down to popular and Syriza resistance, but it is also what happens when profitable companies are sold at a time of recession. Greece’s sale of 14 regional airports is typical of how privatisation short-changes taxpayers, as only the profitable ones were sold, leaving the unprofitable ones still subsidised by Greek citizens.

In other austerity-struck countries, share prices of state-owned assets soared as soon as the sale went public, suggesting the set price was far too low. In the case of the airport network AENA in Spain, for example, the price of the shares increased by 20% the first day of going public, which meant a loss of almost 1 billion euros for the Spanish state....."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/winners-and-losers-in-eu-s-great-privatisation-fire-sale/

Theres a good bit more in the piece to read.

[redebreck]

Great to see an emapassioned post on the matter. What year was it when you were 12 ? I'm assuming its post joining the eu.

Living in Ireland we have very recently had money to build social housing which we also stopped doing. These council houses were built fairly well and like other industries the worst houses built in the country were in the years of boom before this last bust. In 20 years the same houses where I lived appreciated from 30grand to 330grand. While we've had money to build housing the eu is the major reason why we can't build them. The EU says so and thats that due to agreements made, the EU says collect 13 billion from apple in taxes due and they/government object though eventually concede. This is modern politics within the EU - Note this decade long at the time of ruling in 2016 meaning since 2006 at least was conveniently ruled after Brexit.

Over here the disdain for the state having a foothold in housing is still on the rise, more so in institutions of state, banking and the eu. Today there are schemes out there whereby private companies build houses and they lease them to the council for 10 years, after 10 years the private holder can decide if they want to renew the rental agreement or not, or permit the council tenant to enter into a rent to buy scheme. Needless to say I suspect few will decide to permit the council tenant to rent to buy. The 10 year rental costs are paid up front in a lump sum to the developers. This model of long term leasing is praised as progressive and very German like, yet rarely do they state the model in Germany arose to suit cuntish funds who bought up lots of blocks of property after the end of ww2, giving the cunty funds secured long term tenants. You'd end up with no property at the end but will have paid the cost of the property and more in general over your lifetime. It's part of the inequality drive within the eu and attempts to take property away from common people in attempts to dissuade people from having children. Leaving something for kids is typically done via the family home and savings. In our capital city now there are complaints as new modular housing involves rental costs of €1300 euro for a bedroom smaller in area than a disabled car space and 1 kitchen per 42 residents. Outlawed bed sits were far more humane and cheaper. The minister overseeing this has said this young (dumb as fuck) generation are willing to make sacrifices - his father made 2.3million from tribunals in legal costs the only sector to survive mandated cuts and reform. Disabled children funding that's open game, sna's... over one third of all homeless persosn are children and the fastest demographic for sometime now experiencing homelessness are those aged 0-5.

In the rental market tax initiatives have essentially made the landlord market a two tier system and normal private landlords are selling off en masse and larger vulture funds are buying them up. The vulture funds pay a far smaller portion of what the typical private landlord would pay, so we've reduced the tax intake on rental properties also.
While vulture funds are notoriously cuntish in how the treat tenants, breaking rights and getting around rent caps. Though some people have argued that calling large corporate investment funds 'vulture funds' is a demeaning and inhumane label :D Cuntish funds will have to do so. Post the crash we set up nama which has been exposed for assisting interests in securing large amounts of property at the lowest prices. The crash was a property grab. Large swathes of properties were intentionally left unoccupied to inflate rental costs (now above boom while wages are lower thsn then with other increases in costs of living) and restore property prices to peak bubble prices.

I've seen posts before where people break down their income and apportion how much of their money goes to taxation. Income tax, duties, levies, vat, dirt, property, car.... typical earners estimate between 70-80% of their income goes to taxation. Its common for big CEO's to pay less income tax than average employees on average wages. The eu as part of their desires mandated the introduction of water charges in Ireland. Previously increases in taxation had been introduced over the last 30-40 years for water management by governments. They tried to bring it in and it is the sole victory against the states/eu's taxation policy in Ireland, led by people (aka populist scum) and not the traditional parties. There was no effort to return the tax increases which had previously been apportioned for water management either, taxed again. While the water network is in a poor state. Just over half of our processed water is lost to leaky pipes. When you factor in daily consumption and use by individuals and industry that's a lot of processed water lost. The first efforts of the private company set up to manage our water network was to spend money on water meters. Buried under the ground and no real access to monitoring consumption like electricity. The company was also critiqued for spending grandly on office furniture and state of the art furnishings. It's been defeated for now, but it'll come back.

The medical industry has been turned into a cash cow for private enterprises in public expenditure. Today people are stagnating on living longer than before and are simply far more likely to be ageing with more illnesses/conditions than before. People are getting sicker. Increasing the market share of dependants for the medical complex industry. Food industry has been turned into a shitshow with sugar and processed foods having taken over the landscape. Diet today is a greater danger to people in terms of developing illnesses and death than smoking, drinking and inactivity combined ! People who think they are eating healthy are often very misguided. Drug trials are very poor and often do not beat simple changes in diet or incorporating a simple brisk 20 minute walk 3 times a week as a counter option or group. Not that such measures are included in trials. Whilst I posted a link earlier which also details how stents were given to people for no medical reason whatsoever. Just stick them in $$. If you look at psychological measures it's the same story. Time is in short supply and stress is endemic. More recently theres been a new finding of increased rates of anxiety disorders, major depressive episodes and suicides since 2009 and largely attributed to social media and smart phones. Its far more prominent for girls than boys and effects the youngest worst say 9-14 year olds. This many systemic errors and mismanagement puts the probability in the court of design/desired rather than accidental/incompetence. In the case of social media/smart phones it was a known consequence by design and hence few in the industry allow either for their own kids. Its psychotic politics.

Whilst realising that jobs would be lost to automation and outsourcing, new meaningless service industry's were created to occupy the time of citizens. Coupled with an increase in consumerism and extended business hours, 24 hour cultures. This is akin to North Korea giving you scissors to cut the grass just so you are busy. Then more buying stuff to increase profits. However in the eu we dont like to see these things as comparable. Reducing work hours, days commuting to work, hours of commerce would simply give citizens more time for living and a reduced carbon footprint. Time to keep a garden - less need for massive logistical efforts and plastics for carrots etc, to socialise, develop a strong community, spend time with their kids or parents etc. Disgusting stuff I know. You might note that all these have declined under the eu membership. People are isolated and literally dying from loneliness. The art of living is dying out.

Brexit has been wonderful for the eu citizens. Dont forget it's the same individuals who typically score highly in the personality trait psychoticism who leave the national scence to become supra-nationalist politicians. Often sent off after having to leave due to incompetence or corruption. Before it could rerun votes, ignore votes and overrule them by parliaments- still a possibility with Brexit unfortunately. But the idea is out there now, it can be abandoned entirely.

The problem over here and elsewhere is people seem to think it's only their national politics that is to blame, put a few of these in an avengers gang and they'll transform into something superior.

The eu is utterly fucked because it lacked a credible leadership structure. It decided to introduce the Euro which has been a disaster, foreseeable too as the Brits called it, and it failed to break the banking system when it needed to be done. The last banking model was abandoned, this one has been pumped up at the expense of Europe and its citizens. The one the little englanders liked.... It had full/er employment, reduced inequality, council and social housing, a far better medical standard of scientific credibility and science more generally, a decent press compared with the one we've witnessed lately..

Ten years on from the banking crash the banks are still in a dire situation and illegal EU money laundering steadily increases. The eu post Brexit vote has started to realise the game is up. Its started to tackle some issues but rather tamely imo. But at least they're making noises if the are only vain pandering. A lot of the eu noises have come off the back of Brexit as they try and regain its lost image. We can thank the Brits for being the first to walk away from this corrupt entity and as a result it is starting even if only pr to acknowledge its fook ups.
Britain is a huge economy in Europe, with a good education system & high quality universities (relatively). The trade works both ways. Needs must and if the eu wants to punish Britain for leaving the gang it'll do so at some expense. See what they said about trump's tariffs and wonder will they seek to damage trade in practically the same manner. It would be hypocritical which isn't beyond the eu, but it's likely just more attempts to coerce people out of Brexit. It's all a bluff they do this consistently where the people vote against the eu institution. Rerun the vote, inflate fear, force conformity. We've seen it over here too with the extra allegation of literally swapping in ballot boxes. The eu doesnt care for the democratic wishes of nation states. They've an appalling record in terms of crashing ahead with their institutional desires irrespective of whether people want them.

The warnings were made after ww2 and they were spot on. A sick political stewardship and a fetish for profiteering at the expense of humanity. This socio-economic-political model has people worried about their kids futures over a variety of reasons. An increasingly sick Man in a sick World by design.

I'd to cut out some of your post and my own to fit it into the post.

Very interesting post, CCTV. Shows a corruption/deterioration in the EU that many people, myself included, aren't fully aware of.
If the UK manages to leave eventually, something many of our politicians seem to be against, I can see other countries/nations following suit.
When it came into being, the Common Market was probably a good concept, but it's evolved into something else.
Financial greed is a common factor in much of what the EU is dealing with.

[CCTV]

The stuff about fishing - I'll bite. You got sources?

Gave you this link earlier about the fish gut carbon cycle mystery, most of the commercially fished fish are the species listed - bony, of which 90% perform this task and increasingly so as oceans warm/acidify.
If you've looked at the fishing documentaries you'll have an idea of the scale of depletion. These fish clean co2 from the sea and help reduce acidification. We've taken a lot from the seas as they are acidifying.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/phys.org/news/2009-01-fish-guts-marine-carbon-mystery.amp

Found a few links to the topic of corals/atolls that i referenced earlier, Google played ball one day. Probably more for the climate change thread which I'll get back to soon enough.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/ Identifies a few issues, concludes at the end about fishing and mining being the 2 biggest threats.

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/fishing-ban-in-the-large-coral-reef/amp/
&
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/03/gorgeous-fish-just-might-save-planets-dying-coral-reefs/
This one ^^ is where it looks at the role of the parrot fish and urchins and the importance of grazers in maintaining the reef, muck like savoury's work on land with desertification from the climate thread.

[Nineteenx]

What a circus, there's an interview or rather a question asked of Boris Johnson by a reporter about 12 weeks before the EU referendum, to which he replies leaving the EU would be a disaster. Then he decides to back the leave campaign, not because it was something he was passionate about or felt was right, but because it's an opportunity to play his stupid childish University 'Hustings' games, win the EU ref vote, see Cameron 'The gambler' out of a job and try and move himself into No10. We're all in this ridiculous fucking mess because as usual Tories whose wealth means they're very far removed from the lives of normal people and how what they do affect them or will were playing they're silly little childish in fighting games with the nations future, now the ridiculous Tory party look increasingly like making the clown their next leader

[stevie harkness]

Boris for PM has been on the cards for a while. Another British PM the public didn't vote for, but hey that's democracy.

Funny how the first round of voting got rid of all the women and non Oxford graduates, except Javid.

[redebreck]

Boris for PM has been on the cards for a while. Another British PM the public didn't vote for, but hey that's democracy.

Funny how the first round of voting got rid of all the women and non Oxford graduates, except Javid.

What a fecking nightmare - Boris Johnsone UK PM and Donald Trump USA President.
How much worse can it get?

It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
Be interesting to see what happens with BREXIT, seeing how Boris was one of the major protagonists.

[CCTV]

What a fecking nightmare - Boris Johnsone UK PM and Donald Trump USA President.
How much worse can it get?

It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
Be interesting to see what happens with BREXIT, seeing how Boris was one of the major protagonists.

I think the world is a bit safer with trump in office over Clinton.

In the last few weeks trump has said he's under pressure from the military industrial complex to take action in Iran. This week he explained his decision to step down military strikes, how he couldn't justify killing 150 Iranians in those strikes for the shooting down of an unmanned drone.

Trump could be the first American president in this century to not start a new conflict zone !! Seems to be using economic sanctions to do the work of forcing people to the table, which isn't exactly the most moral means of beginning dialogues. But it's a lot better than bomb and burn policies.

Bizarrely the most anti-war in Iran voice (to the best of my knowledge) in mainstream American media was Tucker Carlson on FOX NEWS !!
The traditional left wing media over there seem to be attacking trump for not taking enough military action.

[stevie harkness]

Trump's 'restraint' on calling off the attack didn't ring true to me. One day he calls it off because it would be "disproportionate" and the next day he's threatening to "obliterate" Iran. That's disproportionate. I call bullshit.

It would be ironic if he was the first president in decades not to go to war but I'm sure that he doesn't want that label and it will only act as a spur to drive him on, especially with an election looming...

If he calls off another attack he'll look like a pussy and he doesn't want that. So rather than having a cool headed president with restraint we've got a clown who's painting himself into a corner.

That said, things with North Korea seem more hopeful. Is love to know the story on that

[CCTV]

Trump's 'restraint' on calling off the attack didn't ring true to me. One day he calls it off because it would be "disproportionate" and the next day he's threatening to "obliterate" Iran. That's disproportionate. I call bullshit.

It would be ironic if he was the first president in decades not to go to war but I'm sure that he doesn't want that label and it will only act as a spur to drive him on, especially with an election looming...

If he calls off another attack he'll look like a pussy and he doesn't want that. So rather than having a cool headed president with restraint we've got a clown who's painting himself into a corner.

That said, things with North Korea seem more hopeful. Is love to know the story on that

No doubt theres an egotism and prestige to preserve. If not being labelled a war monger means he doenst start another war, ain't that welcome progress.

He certainly uses the threat of war or 'humanitarian based intervention' (as it's often pushed as) to force discussions and backed by economic sanctions.
While you can critique this approach it appears effective. Certainly more constructive than another campaign of peace and freedom bombs.

He wont look weak or like a pussy if he doesnt go into Iran. The American people on both sides are fed up with these wars/interventions.
There are others on fox who portray this message which seems to be extensive in the left wing legacy media. But American people are at odds with this opinion.
There are numerous independent media personnas on the left and right who oppose the idea.

[CCTV]

The big fear pro-trump was that he'd have access to the nuclear codes. Now hes been critiqued as weak in the same media for not starting a war/intervention.

[stevie harkness]

I wasn't suggesting he's a pussy for not going into Iran. But he'll look like one if he keeps posturing and bragging and threatening and then not going in. Just be cool. You'll get your peace prize just like Barack did.

A while back I mentioned a list of seven countries allegedly leaked by a retired US general, it included Iraq and Afghanistan. This was before Libya and Syria but it mentioned those, and so it came to pass, also on the list were Iran and Sudan? I think. But sure enough they have been slowly but surely ticking them off one by one...

[CCTV]

I wasn't suggesting he's a pussy for not going into Iran. But he'll look like one if he keeps posturing and bragging and threatening and then not going in. Just be cool. You'll get your peace prize just like Barack did.

A while back I mentioned a list of seven countries allegedly leaked by a retired US general, it included Iraq and Afghanistan. This was before Libya and Syria but it mentioned those, and so it came to pass, also on the list were Iran and Sudan? I think. But sure enough they have been slowly but surely ticking them off one by one...

But he'll look like one if he keeps posturing and bragging and threatening and then not going in.

I can see where this idea can come from but imo it doesnt really hold in this particular situation.

He's got the worlds biggest military behind him ,an expanded budget voted for even by Democrats. The dems have presented him as a mad-man like Hitler and given him a bigger military budget, which doesnt add up in theory. Giving the mad man more guns. The profiteering of arms manufacturers is in favour of war, the left wing media is in favour of war, while fox has plenty of pro-war in Iran commentators. Tucker Carlson is an anomaly.

If Iran called his bluff then hed be backed into a corner over it. But everyone in the institutional corner behind him is practically calling for war.
It's not a great position for Iran to be calling his bluff.

Add to this your own post citing 7 countries that are on a list for privatised central banking as is often posited in relation to those countries in addition to resource access and the picture is rather bleak for the Iranians. They and north korea are really relying on international assistance from Russia and China as their partners.

So for me looking weak and having these nations call his bluff is sensible in theory but not applicable in reality.

[stevie harkness]

Not really sure I understand you CCTV but I sense you disagree!

I wasn't thinking Iran would call his bluff, just that his playground posturing limits his options and makes him easier to manipulate. And with other tensions, North Korea, China etc

Something's not right. He launched an airstrike on Iran and the pilots were ten minutes from their target and then he said oh hang on a minute how many will die? Bullshit! That was an actual news story. Maybe it was more for the folks back home, they're probably gullible enough to believe it.

[Nineteenx]

Speaking of guns, Christ knows why the U.S haven't introduced a system of each gun manufactured being fired once and it's ballistic finger print being put on to a database prior to them being sold, it'd solve a fuck load of issues and lower gun crime. People would be a fuck site more hesitant about gunning people down and making sure their guns were all accounted for if they knew it's 'fingerprint' was on a national database. I'd even go further and make the registered owner responsible if their weapon was used in an incident

[RedNoodle]

Speaking of guns, Christ knows why the U.S haven't introduced a system of each gun manufactured being fired once and it's ballistic finger print being put on to a database prior to them being sold, it'd solve a fuck load of issues and lower gun crime. People would be a fuck site more hesitant about gunning people down and making sure their guns were all accounted for if they knew it's 'fingerprint' was on a national database. I'd even go further and make the registered owner responsible if their weapon was used in an incident

That would cost the arms manufacturers time, and more importantly money. Wifh that being the case don't go expecting them (and those in their pockets) to impliment such a thing anytime soon. I often feel unsafe as it is with the continual increase in knife crime. Who knows how bad it/I would be if we were like the US. :eek:

[CCTV]

That would cost the arms manufacturers time, and more importantly money. Wifh that being the case don't go expecting them (and those in their pockets) to impliment such a thing anytime soon. I often feel unsafe as it is with the continual increase in knife crime. Who knows how bad it/I would be if we were like the US. :eek:

That proposal from 19 wouldn't work. Might catch the dumb crooks at first but they'd get wise soon. Too easy to tamper with the barrel markings.

In 2017 the total number of deaths by firearms in the USA was just under 40,000. 60% or 24,000 of those are suidicides. If Ireland today had the USA population wed have 32,000 suicides a year without guns. UK at a rough estimate would be 28,000. Overall USA has a suicide rate of 45,000.

While in the last decade we've a gun murder rate about 6 times greater than the UK. But not on Americas level due to access and inequality as measured by the Gini Coefficient;)
The gini coefficient again an indicator of why the USA has a higher suicide rate.

[Balinkay]

@CC

That was the coefficient that measures how much someone is annoyed that they're well off but the neighbour is better off?

@Noods

Is knife crime really that bad in the UK? And what is being / do you think should be done to fix it? Was just in London last week and the mate I was visiting told me there were relatively central places he'd be scared to walk around it past 10 or so o'clock. Now I know life in provincial Germany has spoiled me (wouldn't be scared to walk home through the unlit park next to my abode completely pissed in the middle of nigh) and you can't really make a big city feel as safe as a small one, but surely that's a pressing issue for the supposed capital of the financial world?

[CCTV]

@CC

That was the coefficient that measures how much someone is annoyed that they're well off but the neighbour is better off?

@Noods

Is knife crime really that bad in the UK? And what is being / do you think should be done to fix it? Was just in London last week and the mate I was visiting told me there were relatively central places he'd be scared to walk around it past 10 or so o'clock. Now I know life in provincial Germany has spoiled me (wouldn't be scared to walk home through the unlit park next to my abode completely pissed in the middle of nigh) and you can't really make a big city feel as safe as a small one, but surely that's a pressing issue for the supposed capital of the financial world?

1) Not how I'd put it, but yes the bom bom bom bom bom bom Gini coefficient is the common measure.

2) for a computer nerd you're lazy :D

While German knife crime has increased 900% in the last decade, according to one likely right wing source. London's knife crime with injury rates exceed the entire country of Germanys.

London is now approaching a homicide rate equivalent to New York. New York is still ahead but has been decreasing the murder rate over the last 2 decades significantly. London on the up.
While London is out there as one of, if not the most common acid attack regions in the world, according to survivor groups stats.

[stevie harkness]

I saw one report trying to put a lot of knife crime down to gangs. Gang on gang violence is one thing, but a gang initiation test of stabbing the next random passer by is fking sick.

The Pomeroy train stabbing was horrific, stabbing an unarmed man in self defence? On camera. And pleading manslaughter. With a straight face. I mean who carries a knife? Keys, wallet, phone, oh hang on I forgot my blade

[Balinkay]

2) for a computer nerd you're lazy :D

You have no idea. It's a gift. :D

Here though I wanted to hear how someone who lives in the country feels. I know it's statistically really bad and have heard the NY comparison more than once before.

[CCTV]

1ZlBy1G9BsQ

Deutsche bank not looking good and a developing story. While our new, to be head of the ECB played her part in getting Venezuela to give up Assange for IMF loans which she has stepped away from in order to come to the ECB.

[Nineteenx]

I saw one report trying to put a lot of knife crime down to gangs. Gang on gang violence is one thing, but a gang initiation test of stabbing the next random passer by is fking sick.

The Pomeroy train stabbing was horrific, stabbing an unarmed man in self defence? On camera. And pleading manslaughter. With a straight face. I mean who carries a knife? Keys, wallet, phone, oh hang on I forgot my blade

Violent crime is just another knock on effect of Reganomics, I hated how the Tories followed the dangerous broken American model literally from the moment I could see it happening as a young teen. I remember that time coincided with American Donahue style shows first appearing on UK TV, it was always pretty logical to me even as a 12 year old, looking at programs like that, seeing elements of their society and the different additional tiers in it caused by it that we didn't really have or were very rare that following such an obviously broken model would lead to the same problems developing in our society.

There were loads of things that were obvious, excuse for privatisation, "It's not cost effective to be owned and run by the state loses lots of money and is costing the tax payer too much" oh really? So, this business that loses so much money and is impossible to run profitably when all the profits are going back to the state is going to attract loads of investors who'll all be looking for significant returns on their investments? Yes of course it's impossible for it to make money and completely unworkable. Just makes no sense whatsoever, it's an obvious lie, like David Kelly's alleged suicide. You just look at it, man charged with doing WMD reports on Iraq, put under incredible pressure to say there were or potentially were, sticks to his morals and principals and reveals there is no evidence of any at all, then tops himself? Such an obvious lie, had Kelly lied to support a false and illegal war, then topped himself following the aftermath of his actions, you could think, maybe, but it's so ridiculous.


UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's government set up the Hutton Inquiry, a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death. The inquiry concluded that Kelly had committed suicide, with the cause of death as "haemorrhage due to incised wounds of the left wrist" in combination with "coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis". Lord Hutton also decided that evidence related to the death, including the post-mortem report and photographs of the body, should remain classified for seventy years

[Balinkay]

Deutsche bank not looking good and a developing story. While our new, to be head of the ECB played her part in getting Venezuela to give up Assange for IMF loans which she has stepped away from in order to come to the ECB.

What did Deutsche Bank do this time?

[CCTV]

What did Deutsche Bank do this time?

Well outside of say criminal banking its constantly been looked at as the most volatile and risky big bank going. Share prices collapsed and potentially the next Lehman brothers. No banker obviously, but it would seem the Brits and yanks cleaned out their issues far better than the eu going off articles/reports

What do you make of the EU's top brass ?

[Balinkay]

Don't really know much about them - would assume they're about as corrupt as anyone else.

[redebreck]

Don't really know much about them - would assume they're about as corrupt as anyone else.

some say far more corrupt

[Balinkay]

some say far more corrupt

Why doesn't that surprise me.

[stevie harkness]

The chancellor of the exchequer threatens to quit if Boris gets in, Sir Alan Duncan of the foreign office already just did quit in protest against Boris, it's a bit fking late in the day to realize he might get in, it's been going on for ages

[OhhEnnEmm]

It's sad to see that our country is being "run" by these toddlers with their tit-for-tat mentalities and petty, pocket-filling ways...

I'm sick of being lied to. Do we really have much of a choice? If we only ever get to choose between a bunch of bad options (liars and corrupt mf's) then how on earth is this an effective democracy?

There is no system that favours the everyday people. They just create the illusion of choice in order to keep us all ticking along in order and making them money. IT'S DISGUSTING.

[redebreck]

It's sad to see that our country is being "run" by these toddlers with their tit-for-tat mentalities and petty, pocket-filling ways...

I'm sick of being lied to. Do we really have much of a choice? If we only ever get to choose between a bunch of bad options (liars and corrupt mf's) then how on earth is this an effective democracy?

There is no system that favours the everyday people. They just create the illusion of choice in order to keep us all ticking along in order and making them money. IT'S DISGUSTING.

welcome to the forum, and the real world

[CCTV]

welcome to the forum, and the real world

The real world. Left wing ideologies appeal to emotions and lack a sound basis philosophically.
People refuse to see it as they absolutely hate the idea that proper rightwing ideologies are the best.

[Balinkay]

The real world. Left wing ideologies appeal to emotions and lack a sound basis philosophically.
People refuse to see it as they absolutely hate the idea that proper rightwing ideologies are the best.

Depends on what you mean by proper right wing I guess. If it's ethnonationalists, I'm not a huge fan.

[stevie harkness]

The real world. Left wing ideologies appeal to emotions and lack a sound basis philosophically.
People refuse to see it as they absolutely hate the idea that proper rightwing ideologies are the best.

We are emotional beings not robots (yet)

A nation is essentially made up of millions of homes.

Every home I have ever been a part of, grown up in, visited, lived in or shared, is essentially run according to a "left wing" model of family, sharing, looking after each other, every person contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need. Every family worthy of the name operates in this way.

This then extends out into the street, villages, tribes (look how the surviving indigenous tribes of the world live)

So perhaps the problem comes when humans try to live in groups of more than a few hundred people.

Suddenly there are people we don't know, strangers, and we look at each other differently (or not at all) and treat each other differently, and loving each other and sharing is no longer 'practical' and there are profits to be had, and right wing ideologies are best for that.

[redebreck]

We are emotional beings not robots (yet)

A nation is essentially made up of millions of homes.

Every home I have ever been a part of, grown up in, visited, lived in or shared, is essentially run according to a "left wing" model of family, sharing, looking after each other, every person contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need. Every family worthy of the name operates in this way.

This then extends out into the street, villages, tribes (look how the surviving indigenous tribes of the world live)

So perhaps the problem comes when humans try to live in groups of more than a few hundred people.

Suddenly there are people we don't know, strangers, and we look at each other differently (or not at all) and treat each other differently, and loving each other and sharing is no longer 'practical' and there are profits to be had, and right wing ideologies are best for that.

spot on, can't disagree with your logic

[CCTV]

Depends on what you mean by proper right wing I guess. If it's ethnonationalists, I'm not a huge fan.


I wouldn't say ethnonationailsm is a right or left wing ideology, more a conception of what a nation should be ethno/civic/lingual/noneofthose. Imo none of those is the worst outcome.
Think it's an area of human nature more so to a point. Though it is politicised in modern culture wars/politics. Not sure I should expand further on this issue.

[redebreck]

I wouldn't say ethnonationailsm is a right or left wing ideology, more a conception of what a nation should be ethno/civic/lingual/noneofthose. Imo none of those is the worst outcome.
Think it's an area of human nature more so to a point. Though it is politicised in modern culture wars/politics. Not sure I should expand further on this issue.

"Look after your own" comes to mind.
Household, Family, Neighbourhood, Village/Town/City, County/Area, Country. Mostly tribal if you think about it.