Chindie Posted June 19, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted June 19, 2017 It's funny how spin works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itdoesntmatterwhatthissay Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 22 minutes ago, Chindie said: It's funny how spin works. Funny isn't the word, it's damn painful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, mjmooney said: Who is 'they'? It wasn't a statement by the Swiss government, it was an opinion piece by a journalist who happens to be Swiss. Does that make it any less valid? I'm not aware anyone said it was a statement by the Swiss government the opinion is about as valid as an opinion on Twitter , VT or any other platform ... i.e it's one persons opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 19, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I'm not aware anyone said it was a statement by the Swiss government the opinion is about as valid as an opinion on Twitter , VT or any other platform ... i.e it's one persons opinion Except the only reason that was given has been... Swiss, no right to complain Everyone's comments against the piece have been about being Swiss. None of those criticisms is therefore valid I think you'll have to agreeTony? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, bickster said: Except the only reason that was given has been... Swiss, no right to complain Everyone's comments against the piece have been about being Swiss. None of those criticisms is therefore valid I think you'll have to agreeTony? I think the comments were more along the lines of you (the author) are a fine one to talk , rather than no right to complain .... I'm sure If I wrote an article about Swiss cheese being crap , that members on Baseltalc would currently be having a similar debate right now in their Soll ich bleiben, soll ich gehen thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 19, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2017 31 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I think the comments were more along the lines of you (the author) are a fine one to talk , rather than no right to complain .... I'm sure If I wrote an article about Swiss cheese being crap , that members on Baseltalc would currently be having a similar debate right now in their Soll ich bleiben, soll ich gehen thread Ok complain isn't the right word but the rebuttal has been entirely... Swiss Maybe someone could say why it's wrong without bringing the authors nationality into it, as it's hugely irrelevant to the substantive of the article 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 19, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2017 4 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said: It should be objected to on the grounds that comparing present divisions within the UK with the Civil War, where one in ten of the male population died, is hyperbolic to say the least. It doesn't do that, does it. It specifically does pretty much the opposite. MJaybe this should be in the TTPYO thread, but the number of people who will take a statement like "British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century" (or any similar the best thing since/ worst disaster since Dunkirk or whatever) and say "how can you say it's the same as or comparable to Dunkirk (or the Civil war...) is ridiculous. The article clearly implies the divisions are NOT as big as in the civil war. But carry on misinterpreting what is written, see the words "civil war" and just focus on them, not the actual comparison which is saying it's not as serious as the Civil War. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 14:58, magnkarl said: It does sound a bit far-fetched when you put it like that but I think the original sentiments posted here was about all the red tape concerning permits and details that don't jeopardize safety in any way. In our current EU regulated system only the largest building associations and developers are able to build because the smaller guys can't keep up with all the legislation. There are ways to ease those troubles without affecting safety laws. Smaller builders, who build just as well and safely as the bigger guys, simply can't afford to keep doing their job. Did we get to the bottom of what legislation small builders can't keep up with that's stopping them building? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 hour ago, blandy said: It doesn't do that, does it. It specifically does pretty much the opposite. MJaybe this should be in the TTPYO thread, but the number of people who will take a statement like "British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century" (or any similar the best thing since/ worst disaster since Dunkirk or whatever) and say "how can you say it's the same as or comparable to Dunkirk (or the Civil war...) is ridiculous. The article clearly implies the divisions are NOT as big as in the civil war. But carry on misinterpreting what is written, see the words "civil war" and just focus on them, not the actual comparison which is saying it's not as serious as the Civil War. It says 'more divided'. Is it really? Do you actually think that? More divided than the Victorian England described by Disraeli, Engels, Rowntree and Booth? What about the 1926 General Strike - more divided than then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 It's the most divided I've ever seen it, in my, admittedly short, life so far. Remain/leave Old/young Rich/poor Everyone is divided, between friends, family, colleagues. It's awful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 7 hours ago, magnkarl said: The EU needs to understand that reform is needed. People like Junker and Verhofstadt need to be removed and replaced with proper politicians who know a thing or two about solidarity. Verhofstadt is a democratically elected MEP, put there by the people of Belgium directly, having previously been their Prime Minister. Juncker, having previously served as Prime Minister of his country, was appointed/elected/confirmed by a vote of the European Parliament to lead the Commission, after being nominated by people like David Cameron --- who based their decision on the 2014 European elections. Both of these men have served as PM of their respective countries, so we can't claim they're just the faceless neoliberal technocrats we sometimes hear about. And both them have some form of democratic mandate from the people of Europe. Yet you're against directly elected Verhofstadt, and also against indirectly elected Juncker. You want them replaced, and you want reform... exactly what sort of reform have you got in mind? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Enda said: Juncker, having previously served as Prime Minister of his country, was appointed/elected/confirmed by a vote of the European Parliament to lead the Commission, after being nominated by people like David Cameron Wasn't Cameron one of the two (with Hungary) who voted against Juncker? Edited June 19, 2017 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Enda said: Verhofstadt is a democratically elected MEP, put there by the people of Belgium directly, having previously been their Prime Minister. Juncker, having previously served as Prime Minister of his country, was appointed/elected/confirmed by a vote of the European Parliament to lead the Commission, after being nominated by people like David Cameron --- who based their decision on the 2014 European elections. Both of these men have served as PM of their respective countries, so we can't claim they're just the faceless neoliberal technocrats we sometimes hear about. And both them have some form of democratic mandate from the people of Europe. Yet you're against directly elected Verhofstadt, and also against indirectly elected Juncker. You want them replaced, and you want reform... exactly what sort of reform have you got in mind? For one, don't elect a man who has stimulated tax fraud in Luxembourg for decades in Junker. A man who has done so much harm to the countries in Europe by sheltering bad business at low tax rates. This isn't an English or UK "project fear" thing. It was listed in Zeit Online just 20 days ago. Linky. A lot of people in Germany are extremely angry at Junker and this old man syndrome that the EU seems to have. Verhofstadt I can't really stand at all. He's a man who likes to insult countries like Hungary and Denmark for actually trying to raise very serious issues internally. He's earned an incredible amount of money on shouting at people in Brussels, anyone who even dare raise their concerns, like Ireland with the Lisbon agreement, get absolutely bullied by this man. Ireland didn't want to be part of the Lisbon agreement but got forced by Verhofstadt and his kin. He's a democratic leader until it doesn't go his way, then he turns into a dictator. Ireland clearly voted no in its first Lisbon referendum - EU could not take that and instantly called a second referendum. It's the most undemocratic thing I've seen in Western Europe since donkeys-years. My problem with who is elected into the EU is how the elections are held in the member states. The turnout for EU elections in most of the countries in EU are abysmal so it leads to second rate politicians like Nigel Farage getting a seat. If you cross reference the MEP's compared to the actual governments of the member states you'll see that there's a whole myriad of fringe politicians in the EU parliament. In fact the two biggest percentage turn outs for any MEP election in EU is in Belgium where Verhofstadt is based and in Luxembourg where Junker is based. Coincidence? Also, Cameron voted against Junker. So I have no idea where you got that from. Edited June 19, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 27 minutes ago, snowychap said: Wasn't Cameron one of the two (with Hungary) who voted against Juncker? Yes yes, by Cameron I meant heads of the member-states. So nominated by other democratically mandated people. Yes, the Tories left the EPP (the largest European Parliament grouping) a few years ago and there's been hostility since. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 19, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: It says 'more divided'. Is it really? Do you actually think that? More divided than the Victorian England described by Disraeli, Engels, Rowntree and Booth? What about the 1926 General Strike - more divided than then? It says more divided than any time since a past event. Not that it is comparable to that past event. It's what the author thinks. Your dismissal of that because the past event involved lots of deaths is a wrong minded dismissal of something he didn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Enda said: Yes yes, by Cameron I meant heads of the member-states. So nominated by other democratically mandated people. Yes, the Tories left the EPP (the largest European Parliament grouping) a few years ago and there's been hostility since. Ah, no worries - I thought my memory was playing tricks on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, magnkarl said: For one, don't elect a man who has stimulated tax fraud in Luxembourg for decades in Junker. ... Verhofstadt I can't really stand at all. Your problem is that people are electing politicians you don't like. That's not an argument for reform. Your arguments about Luxembourg's tax rates are interesting. Are you willing to go so far as to say Europe should be allowed to bully countries with low tax rates? Is that the sort of reform you'd like? Again, what sort of EU do you want? One with more power over member-states or less? 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: like Ireland with the Lisbon agreement, get absolutely bullied by this man. Ireland didn't want to be part of the Lisbon agreement but got forced by Verhofstadt and his kin. He's a democratic leader until it doesn't go his way, then he turns into a dictator. This is wrong. We voted 67% Yes to Lisbon after Ireland-specific assurances about abortion and military neutrality were added onto the end of it. A dictator (who was PM of another country at the time, not in EP) who convinces 67% of the Irish electorate to vote for Lisbon is a very democratically minded dictator. 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: My problem with who is elected into the EU is how the elections are held in the member states. The turnout for EU elections in most of the countries in EU are abysmal so it leads to second rate politicians like Nigel Farage getting a seat. If you cross reference the MEP's compared to the actual governments of the member states you'll see that there's a whole myriad of fringe politicians in the EU parliament. Again, what do you want the EU to do about this? How member-states hold their elections is up to.... member-states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Enda said: Your arguments about Luxembourg's tax rates are interesting. Are you willing to go so far as to say Europe should be allowed to bully countries with low tax rates? Is that the sort of reform you'd like? Again, what sort of EU do you want? One with more power over member-states or less? It has nothing to do with more power to member states. It has something to do with judging each country in the same way. If the UK were to do what Junker put into system in Luxembourg we'd face extreme consequences. You can't pretend to be democratic when it's about Hungary or Denmark because they're skeptics, and then when someone shines a light on your extremely dodgy tax dealings go "oh shit, I thought we had enough power within Luxembourg to commit systematic tax fraud." It's this sort of duality that pisses people off with the EU. On the Irish Lisbon agreement thing I think you'd find a hell of a lot of people in Ireland that will say that they got fooled into voting yes the second time. If a country decides no you can't just call another referendum and pump money into a campaign. Should we call another referendum just because Europe doesn't want us to leave? That isn't democracy. The people voted and EU reacted by forcing another snap referendum. Maybe we should call another referendum and call it best out of 3? I voted remain by the way, but I sure as hell wouldn't protest the decision that was made democratically in our country. Neither the EU or anyone else have the right to meddle in democracy because it doesn't suit them. The typical arguments from EU lovers are. "You don't like it? Well that's not an argument for reform." EU is losing its second largest economy. Is that an argument for reform? Is almost losing Holland/Denmark/Sweden an argument for reform? Is Switzerland trying to protect its work market an argument for reform? Is Greece falling to bits under EU membership an argument for reform? Edited June 19, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 19, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Should we call another referendum just because Europe doesn't want us to leave? That isn't democracy. The people voted and EU reacted by forcing another snap referendum. Maybe we should call another referendum and call it best out of 3? 1 If the mood of the country changed, it would be absolutely democratic to hold another referendum. It's your idea that once something's been decided, that's it, no going back regardless, that is anti-democratic. It would also be democratic to give the people the final say on the deal that gets/doesn't get done, that should absolutely go to another referendum. Again to not offer the people that choice would be undemocratic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bickster said: If the mood of the country changed, it would be absolutely democratic to hold another referendum. It's your idea that once something's been decided, that's it, no going back regardless, that is anti-democratic. It would also be democratic to give the people the final say on the deal that gets/doesn't get done, that should absolutely go to another referendum. Again to not offer the people that choice would be undemocratic I would say that a referendum on the deal we make with EU would be more of a democratic way of handling this going forward. The people decided what to do with EU - now we need to get the power to decide what terms we negotiate. I don't agree that we should hold another referendum on our EU membership. When is it enough once you start with another one? The no side will want to call another one, and if that goes no then the yes side will call another one. That is an endless cycle of referendums. Edited June 19, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts