Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody have [credible] material on why Europe (Eu and it’s earlier forms) was created. I’ve skimmed Fredrick Forsyth’s opinion piece and surprised he’s claiming it was because people saw democracy as being the reason nazis got in power. My history isn’t the hottest but I thought it was a lot more complicated than that... they managed to leverage a small foothold by getting laws passed which gave them more power than they intended. Less the fault of the voter. More the voted. " The EU essentially started as the European Steel and Coal Community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody have [credible] material on why Europe (Eu and it’s earlier forms) was created. I’ve skimmed Fredrick Forsyth’s opinion piece and surprised he’s claiming it was because people saw democracy as being the reason nazis got in power. My history isn’t the hottest but I thought it was a lot more complicated than that... they managed to leverage a small foothold by getting laws passed which gave them more power than they intended. Less the fault of the voter. More the voted. "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody have [credible] material on why Europe (Eu and it’s earlier forms) was created. I’ve skimmed Fredrick Forsyth’s opinion piece and surprised he’s claiming it was because people saw democracy as being the reason nazis got in power. My history isn’t the hottest but I thought it was a lot more complicated than that... they managed to leverage a small foothold by getting laws passed which gave them more power than they intended. Less the fault of the voter. More the voted. " After WW1, WW1 round 2 (Spanish Civil War) and finally WW1 round 3 (also called WW2) the EEC was formed to permanently remove the conditions that lead to the previous 30 years of warfare on the European continent. From the beginning it was always envisioned that eventually the Iron and Steel Community would eventually evolve into a single political and economic entity. That goal is even recorded in the opening declaration of the Treaty of Rome. Democracy was not responsible for the rise of Nazism, Fascism and Bolshevik extremism. Austerity for the masses and the growth of excessive visible consumption by the elite was the cause, and we can see the same process in action today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It basically started because after WW2 the U.S. wanted a strong West Germany at the heart of Europe to counter any threat from their new best enemies the USSR and it poured money into Germany and France and convinced them to form an alliance so that they didn’t once again start fighting each other and let the Russians in through the back door. The aim then was for Germany to dominate Europe and gradually take over Eastern European countries by political and economic means so that Russia over the years had less and less influence. This has come to pass. As Forsyth says, the Treaty of Rome was written with the intention of creating a European super state where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy with the creation of the European Parliament, which is pretty much useless. Covers most of it I think "Crazy much? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) " Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things." Lol, the same old record, the tories are to blame | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It basically started because after WW2 the U.S. wanted a strong West Germany at the heart of Europe to counter any threat from their new best enemies the USSR and it poured money into Germany and France and convinced them to form an alliance so that they didn’t once again start fighting each other and let the Russians in through the back door. The aim then was for Germany to dominate Europe and gradually take over Eastern European countries by political and economic means so that Russia over the years had less and less influence. This has come to pass. As Forsyth says, the Treaty of Rome was written with the intention of creating a European super state where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy with the creation of the European Parliament, which is pretty much useless. Covers most of it I think "...and then it became apparent that the name 'Chacal' is a portmanteau of Charles Calthrop, imagine that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"germans ...enough said" I think if you tried really hard, you could manage to say something less clichéd and more substantive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It basically started because after WW2 the U.S. wanted a strong West Germany at the heart of Europe to counter any threat from their new best enemies the USSR and it poured money into Germany and France and convinced them to form an alliance so that they didn’t once again start fighting each other and let the Russians in through the back door. The aim then was for Germany to dominate Europe and gradually take over Eastern European countries by political and economic means so that Russia over the years had less and less influence. This has come to pass. As Forsyth says, the Treaty of Rome was written with the intention of creating a European super state where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy with the creation of the European Parliament, which is pretty much useless. Covers most of it I think
Crazy much?"In what way? Which part do you think isn’t true? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things." The Tories were elected by the people  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is some interesting information in this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgLp0RqmOFM " Will have a look, thanks And to others who have contributed. Even if they were sometimes opinions not sources ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx" And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism. "And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing "Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it. "How was the poster being xenophobic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it.
How was the poster being xenophobic?"The poster is xenophobic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it.
How was the poster being xenophobic?
The poster is xenophobic "And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare. Maybe you’d like to contribute constructively to the thread and impart your deep knowledge of the EU? How and why it was formed, it’s aims and who it is run by etc? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it.
How was the poster being xenophobic?
The poster is xenophobic
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare.
Maybe you’d like to contribute constructively to the thread and impart your deep knowledge of the EU? How and why it was formed, it’s aims and who it is run by etc?"You mean youre not trolling as usual...Ok I'll play.. The EU was created with the highest morals in mind and for the greater good of all its citizens after centuries of Europeans tearing each other to shreds we've experienced a long period of peace and stability and economic growth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx" I don't understand - in what way do the Germans run the EU? I'm inferring the reason you want out is because the UK isn't in control. Which probably sums up the UK. The English are in control of the UK, so that union is great; the English are not in control of the EU, so that union is bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx I don't understand - in what way do the Germans run the EU? I'm inferring the reason you want out is because the UK isn't in control. Which probably sums up the UK. The English are in control of the UK, so that union is great; the English are not in control of the EU, so that union is bad. " The DUP control the balance of power in the UK at the moment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is some interesting information in this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgLp0RqmOFM Will have a look, thanks And to others who have contributed. Even if they were sometimes opinions not sources !" You're welcome. I'd be interested in hearing your views on the documentary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it.
How was the poster being xenophobic?
The poster is xenophobic
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare.
Maybe you’d like to contribute constructively to the thread and impart your deep knowledge of the EU? How and why it was formed, it’s aims and who it is run by etc?
You mean youre not trolling as usual...Ok I'll play..
The EU was created with the highest morals in mind and for the greater good of all its citizens after centuries of Europeans tearing each other to shreds we've experienced a long period of peace and stability and economic growth. "Straight from the EU handbook ?? Then again I’d expect nothing more from the closed mind of a remainer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
Only a child would ignore the his
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it.
How was the poster being xenophobic?
The poster is xenophobic
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare.
Maybe you’d like to contribute constructively to the thread and impart your deep knowledge of the EU? How and why it was formed, it’s aims and who it is run by etc?
You mean youre not trolling as usual...Ok I'll play..
The EU was created with the highest morals in mind and for the greater good of all its citizens after centuries of Europeans tearing each other to shreds we've experienced a long period of peace and stability and economic growth.
Straight from the EU handbook ??
Then again I’d expect nothing more from the closed mind of a remainer "All for being open minded .However in your case and many brexiters you've taken it to the extreme and your brain has fallen out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh no u can't say that ...the do gooders and remoaners will have a great deal to spout about ....x" I'd like to think that anyone, regardless of where they fall on your miserable classification spectrum would take issue with such a blatant lie. Unless you're conceding that the contrary position to Remain is just fine and dandy with untruths as long as they reinforce it's position.... But surely not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. Lol, the same old record, the tories are to blame "Hey if the shoe fits!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people "So was Hitler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler."Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"EU was build on the basic blue print that hitler drew up, with germany as the super state "An interesting article from the Telegraph on the EU timeline (up to 2009 which is the date of the article), where the first two entries are: 1946 Winston Churchill calls for a "kind of United States of Europe" in a speech at Zurich University. 1949 France, UK and the Benelux countries decide to set in place a Council of Europe And then: 1950 Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, proposes that France, Germany and any other European country wishing to join pool coal and steel resources. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy "Keep telling yourself that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Keep telling yourself that."Well can you tell me how taking more powers from individual countries and passing them to a centralised institution in Brussels is democratic? Can you tell me who the members of the EU commission are and when their names appeared on any public ballot paper? These are the people who decide which laws to introduce don’t forget. Can you tell me how there is any democracy in the financial sphere under the EU treaties? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy "Except that's not true, is it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Except that's not true, is it."Oui ca l’est | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Except that's not true, is it.
Oui ca l’est"Solid argument, I am completely convinced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. " Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public " You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public " Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? " Yes, which minister is not an MP? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence." Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists?" If you knew all that, then why persist the lie that they're not answerable? As for how they're selected, that's a matter for each EU member state, if you're concerned about who your government is sending, then they ought to be your first and only port of call. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP?" Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others "Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as I am supposedly alt Reich, according to some on here just because they disagree with me, what do people think Jeremy Corbyn meant when he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, saying that the EU had ’handed control to a bunch of unelected bankers ‘?" Get back here with those goalposts! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?"They are ALL ministers! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as I am supposedly alt Reich, according to some on here just because they disagree with me, what do people think Jeremy Corbyn meant when he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, saying that the EU had ’handed control to a bunch of unelected bankers ‘?" The treaty established the tests for economic and monetary convergence, leading to the Euro. Exchange rate mechanism. Remember that? That was one of the criteria. Others were about inflation and debt. It was the precursor for entry to the Euro, which involved setting up a central bank. Had it been done properly then economic and monetary policy would have been centralised and the central bank probably would have much sharper teeth. Who controls our central bank? Who owns it? Unelected? Yep. The bail-out conducted by the Sterling central bank after the crash dwarfed any other country in Europe. Hundreds of billions of £s created out of thin air and poured into the city of London. How much of it trickled down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists? If you knew all that, then why persist the lie that they're not answerable? As for how they're selected, that's a matter for each EU member state, if you're concerned about who your government is sending, then they ought to be your first and only port of call." They were, that’s why I voted out against their wishes and we are leaving | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as I am supposedly alt Reich, according to some on here just because they disagree with me, what do people think Jeremy Corbyn meant when he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, saying that the EU had ’handed control to a bunch of unelected bankers ‘? The treaty established the tests for economic and monetary convergence, leading to the Euro. Exchange rate mechanism. Remember that? That was one of the criteria. Others were about inflation and debt. It was the precursor for entry to the Euro, which involved setting up a central bank. Had it been done properly then economic and monetary policy would have been centralised and the central bank probably would have much sharper teeth. Who controls our central bank? Who owns it? Unelected? Yep. The bail-out conducted by the Sterling central bank after the crash dwarfed any other country in Europe. Hundreds of billions of £s created out of thin air and poured into the city of London. How much of it trickled down? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists? If you knew all that, then why persist the lie that they're not answerable? As for how they're selected, that's a matter for each EU member state, if you're concerned about who your government is sending, then they ought to be your first and only port of call. They were, that’s why I voted out against their wishes and we are leaving "Yes, you did the worst possible thing, good job. But in your rush to have a little moment there you have rather put the lie to your entire charade up to this. You've been content to paint your issues with the EU commission as a fault of the EU, but now you're jerking yourself off over how you stuck it to the government, because of the people they chose to send to the EU commission. Once again, good job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I miss the "EU is a Stalinist plot" posts that we used to get round here ... "It was Stalin, or Hitler, or Stalin and Hitler, and Napoleon, and erm and errr... Freddy Krueger. Yeah, it was them wot did it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I miss the "EU is a Stalinist plot" posts that we used to get round here ... "Well, when people take their talking points from a Russian botnet on twitter, you can't be surprised that they'd stop making comparisons to Russia's "difficult period" in their marching orders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Keep telling yourself that.
Well can you tell me how taking more powers from individual countries and passing them to a centralised institution in Brussels is democratic? Can you tell me who the members of the EU commission are and when their names appeared on any public ballot paper? These are the people who decide which laws to introduce don’t forget. Can you tell me how there is any democracy in the financial sphere under the EU treaties? "Did we or did we not accept the rules and regulations up to that point when we applied to join? Did we or did we not have representatives there when future rules and regulations were being introduced/decided? If every single one of us was to vote for everything in every single organisation we belong to, we'd all have to quit our jobs and become full time voters. As for voting for Brexit, you're in severe denial if you think that most people's vote was about the EU as such and not a protest vote to demonstrate their anger for years and years of being left behind by successive governments. Do you think it's a coincidence that the north pinned their hopes on Leave more than anywhere else in the country? Do you think it's a coincidence that London voted Remain? I appreciate your hatred for the EU (for whatever reason) but please don't try to justify it to others using false pretenses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists? If you knew all that, then why persist the lie that they're not answerable? As for how they're selected, that's a matter for each EU member state, if you're concerned about who your government is sending, then they ought to be your first and only port of call. They were, that’s why I voted out against their wishes and we are leaving
Yes, you did the worst possible thing, good job.
But in your rush to have a little moment there you have rather put the lie to your entire charade up to this.
You've been content to paint your issues with the EU commission as a fault of the EU, but now you're jerking yourself off over how you stuck it to the government, because of the people they chose to send to the EU commission.
Once again, good job."No, I stuck it to the government and the EU | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And - you apparently decided the best way to respond to the UK government accepting bribes for their EU commission seat, was to give this self same government the power to negotiate an exit from the EU, giving the government you already describe as corrupt even more power than before. If your goal was to punish them for being corrupt, congratulations, you've just handed them more power and even less oversight. *slow clap*" Au contraire, they are now more accountable to the people of the UK and can’t hide under the EU umbrella | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Keep telling yourself that.
Well can you tell me how taking more powers from individual countries and passing them to a centralised institution in Brussels is democratic? Can you tell me who the members of the EU commission are and when their names appeared on any public ballot paper? These are the people who decide which laws to introduce don’t forget. Can you tell me how there is any democracy in the financial sphere under the EU treaties?
Did we or did we not accept the rules and regulations up to that point when we applied to join? Did we or did we not have representatives there when future rules and regulations were being introduced/decided? If every single one of us was to vote for everything in every single organisation we belong to, we'd all have to quit our jobs and become full time voters.
As for voting for Brexit, you're in severe denial if you think that most people's vote was about the EU as such and not a protest vote to demonstrate their anger for years and years of being left behind by successive governments. Do you think it's a coincidence that the north pinned their hopes on Leave more than anywhere else in the country? Do you think it's a coincidence that London voted Remain?
I appreciate your hatred for the EU (for whatever reason) but please don't try to justify it to others using false pretenses."So, no answers then. Though I appreciate the questions were tough  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?
They are ALL ministers! "So come on Ben, how are you going to hold any of these ministers to account? How are you going to hold any elected minister whose constituency you don't live in to account? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public Oh dear. EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of each nation. They don't have constituents in the traditional sense, because each commissioner has an portfolio they represent, such as sport, foreign affairs, Justice, Climate action etc etc, and not a geographical area. They are, identical to cabinet members in this respect. In addition they're also answerable to the European parliament (you know, the guys that are directly elected) and their entire commission can be forced to resign through a vote of no confidence. Yes and bears shit in the woods. I know all that but how do governments decide who will be our commissioner? I guess you didn’t watch the film on lobbyists? If you knew all that, then why persist the lie that they're not answerable? As for how they're selected, that's a matter for each EU member state, if you're concerned about who your government is sending, then they ought to be your first and only port of call. They were, that’s why I voted out against their wishes and we are leaving
Yes, you did the worst possible thing, good job.
But in your rush to have a little moment there you have rather put the lie to your entire charade up to this.
You've been content to paint your issues with the EU commission as a fault of the EU, but now you're jerking yourself off over how you stuck it to the government, because of the people they chose to send to the EU commission.
Once again, good job.
No, I stuck it to the government and the EU "Of course you did, sweetie. But that doesn't really address the meat of this, does it. How you've gone from blaming the EU for the commissioners the UK government selects, to blaming the government itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And - you apparently decided the best way to respond to the UK government accepting bribes for their EU commission seat, was to give this self same government the power to negotiate an exit from the EU, giving the government you already describe as corrupt even more power than before. If your goal was to punish them for being corrupt, congratulations, you've just handed them more power and even less oversight. *slow clap* Au contraire, they are now more accountable to the people of the UK and can’t hide under the EU umbrella "How could the UK government hide under EU umbrella when it comes to who the UK government selects as a commissioner? This was, like so many things people like to blame the EU for, all in the hands of the UK government. Maybe you should stick to your pidgin French lessons, politics isn't your forte. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok the Germans fought two world wars to rule most of the Europe as we know it....as of today they still seem to run the eu in many ways ....so maybe they got what they wanted in a different way ....glad we soon out of it all ...xxxx And here we have the mind of a brexiter laid bare.Fearful,conspiracies and xenophobic nationalism.
And there we have the mind of a remainer laid bare, accusations of xenophobia based on nothing
Fear and nationalism always leads to xenophobia and hate and sometimes murder as we've seen here.As always you and others brexiters have no choice but to defend it. "Laughable coming from the man who said just a few days a go that all Irish people are terrorists!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(...) where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy (...) Kinda like what the Tories are doing over here then (anything from plutocracy to withholding devolution). I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about how to make a mess of things. The Tories were elected by the people
So was Hitler.
Get with it. That is why the EU is against democracy
Keep telling yourself that.
Well can you tell me how taking more powers from individual countries and passing them to a centralised institution in Brussels is democratic? Can you tell me who the members of the EU commission are and when their names appeared on any public ballot paper? These are the people who decide which laws to introduce don’t forget. Can you tell me how there is any democracy in the financial sphere under the EU treaties?
Did we or did we not accept the rules and regulations up to that point when we applied to join? Did we or did we not have representatives there when future rules and regulations were being introduced/decided? If every single one of us was to vote for everything in every single organisation we belong to, we'd all have to quit our jobs and become full time voters.
As for voting for Brexit, you're in severe denial if you think that most people's vote was about the EU as such and not a protest vote to demonstrate their anger for years and years of being left behind by successive governments. Do you think it's a coincidence that the north pinned their hopes on Leave more than anywhere else in the country? Do you think it's a coincidence that London voted Remain?
I appreciate your hatred for the EU (for whatever reason) but please don't try to justify it to others using false pretenses.
So, no answers then. Though I appreciate the questions were tough "Superiority and condescension are indeed convenient blinkers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Government. We are all governed by something. (Unless you are a queen like me, of course) Is it Brussels government bad, London government good? I’m sure both are equally inept at times. But if we are going to have clowns in charge, better they are red, white and blue clowns, eh? Someone asked in another post for an example of EU regulation you found objectionable. I could not think of one. But I can think of plenty dumb decisions made in London. I will miss the EU. I think it has had a beneficial impact on my life. Now I have to rely on the wisdom of my fellow citizens on their choice of people to govern us. At the moment, I am not impressed. None of them fill me with any sort of confidence. Step forward a new leader, someone with charisma and vision. Your country needs you. PS Do you think Canada might lend us Justin Trudeau for a while? Asking for a friend "No, he's ours | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It basically started because after WW2 the U.S. wanted a strong West Germany at the heart of Europe to counter any threat from their new best enemies the USSR and it poured money into Germany and France and convinced them to form an alliance so that they didn’t once again start fighting each other and let the Russians in through the back door. The aim then was for Germany to dominate Europe and gradually take over Eastern European countries by political and economic means so that Russia over the years had less and less influence. This has come to pass. As Forsyth says, the Treaty of Rome was written with the intention of creating a European super state where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy with the creation of the European Parliament, which is pretty much useless. Covers most of it I think "Hold up, so you believe tat the US who got involved directly in the European theatre of War, after basically replenishing the raw manpower needed to push back the Nazi's followed this up and went: "Oh god, clearly the Russian Federation is going to claim Eastern Europe and evolve into the USSR! Looks like if we win this war we best secure West Germany and use it as a proxy to keep the future soviets at bay." "How do we do that??" "We take West Germany and France help them become mutually dependant economically so they dont fight, convince the Europeans to form some kind of a pan-european state which we will slpwly enable them to take democracy from." "So over a long period of time we are going to create tyrants to fight other tyrants, despite the fact that we are fighting with the europeans to liberate them from tyrants?" "Yes." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It basically started because after WW2 the U.S. wanted a strong West Germany at the heart of Europe to counter any threat from their new best enemies the USSR and it poured money into Germany and France and convinced them to form an alliance so that they didn’t once again start fighting each other and let the Russians in through the back door. The aim then was for Germany to dominate Europe and gradually take over Eastern European countries by political and economic means so that Russia over the years had less and less influence. This has come to pass. As Forsyth says, the Treaty of Rome was written with the intention of creating a European super state where democracy was taken away from nation states and the people because they couldn’t be trusted to run things or to not start fighting again. This has almost come to pass because the EU is run by a plutocracy (the rich and powerful) and just displays a sham version of democracy with the creation of the European Parliament, which is pretty much useless. Covers most of it I think
Hold up, so you believe tat the US who got involved directly in the European theatre of War, after basically replenishing the raw manpower needed to push back the Nazi's followed this up and went:
"Oh god, clearly the Russian Federation is going to claim Eastern Europe and evolve into the USSR! Looks like if we win this war we best secure West Germany and use it as a proxy to keep the future soviets at bay."
"How do we do that??"
"We take West Germany and France help them become mutually dependant economically so they dont fight, convince the Europeans to form some kind of a pan-european state which we will slpwly enable them to take democracy from."
"So over a long period of time we are going to create tyrants to fight other tyrants, despite the fact that we are fighting with the europeans to liberate them from tyrants?"
"Yes.""They obviously don’t believe themselves or what they have created to be tyrannical but in a nutshell, yes. Why has the EU expanded to the east? Why did they target Ukraine? Why did the EU and U.S. promote a coup in that country and support the removal of a democratically elected leader? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?
They are ALL ministers!
So come on Ben, how are you going to hold any of these ministers to account? How are you going to hold any elected minister whose constituency you don't live in to account?"Still no answer from Ben! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?
They are ALL ministers!
So come on Ben, how are you going to hold any of these ministers to account? How are you going to hold any elected minister whose constituency you don't live in to account?
Still no answer from Ben! "You were talking about the CABINET, how many cabinet ministers are not MP’s? And if I don’t live in their constituency then I can hold their party to account | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element" Hopefully, but the future of star trek did require humanity going through a eugenics war and a third world war before finally coming to their senses so... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Someone asked in another post for an example of EU regulation you found objectionable. I could not think of one. But I can think of plenty dumb decisions made in London. I will miss the EU. I think it has had a beneficial impact on my life. " I asked the question but I don't think I got an answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?
They are ALL ministers!
So come on Ben, how are you going to hold any of these ministers to account? How are you going to hold any elected minister whose constituency you don't live in to account?
Still no answer from Ben!
You were talking about the CABINET, how many cabinet ministers are not MP’s? And if I don’t live in their constituency then I can hold their party to account "Actually you said "which minister is not an MP?" All of the ones above are ministers. As regards to the cabinet, 3 are in the lords, so how are they held to account? Nice to see you admit that you CAN'T hold the individual to account if you don't live in their constituency | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people get their knickers in a twist about the commission, it works in the same way as our cabinet. Our cabinet is made up of MP’s elected by the public and are answerable to their constituents. The commissions seats are ‘paid ‘ for and they are not answerable to the public You realise the difference between an MP and a Minister don't you? Yes, which minister is not an MP? Baroness Evans, Baroness Williams, Lord Ahmad, Lord Callanan, Earl Howe, Lord Keen, Lord O'Shaughnessy, Lord Henley, Lord Bourne, Lord Agnew, Lord Gardiner, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Buscombe, Lord Duncan, Lord Bates, Lord Ashton, Lord Keen, Baroness Fairhead, Lord Taylor, Earl of Courtown, and many many others
Ffs. How many of them are in the cabinet?
They are ALL ministers!
So come on Ben, how are you going to hold any of these ministers to account? How are you going to hold any elected minister whose constituency you don't live in to account?
Still no answer from Ben!
You were talking about the CABINET, how many cabinet ministers are not MP’s? And if I don’t live in their constituency then I can hold their party to account
Actually you said "which minister is not an MP?" All of the ones above are ministers. As regards to the cabinet, 3 are in the lords, so how are they held to account?
Nice to see you admit that you CAN'T hold the individual to account if you don't live in their constituency "Leader of the House of Lords sits in the cabinet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element" One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming. "Ye and we could call it Oceania | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceania"except iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles. But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceania"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania Oceania (UK: /?o?si'??ni?, ?o??i-, -'e?n-/, US: /?o??i'æni?/ ( listen), /-'??n-/)[3] is a geographic region comprising Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesiaand Australasia.[4] Spanning the eastern and western hemispheres, Oceania covers an area of 8,525,989 square kilometres (3,291,903 sq mi) and has a population of 40 million. Situated in the southeast of the Asia-Pacific region, Oceania is the smallest continental grouping in land area and the second smallest in population after Antarctica.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
Oceania (UK: /?o?si'??ni?, ?o??i-, -'e?n-/, US: /?o??i'æni?/ ( listen), /-'??n-/)[3] is a geographic region comprising Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesiaand Australasia.[4] Spanning the eastern and western hemispheres, Oceania covers an area of 8,525,989 square kilometres (3,291,903 sq mi) and has a population of 40 million. Situated in the southeast of the Asia-Pacific region, Oceania is the smallest continental grouping in land area and the second smallest in population after Antarctica. "I suspect he was going for an Orwellian definition. I may be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this. "Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark. What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures "Destruction of nations and cultures? Stop making things up, there's a good lad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad."So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad.
So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag?"What about that necessitates the "destruction of cultures"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad.
So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag?
What about that necessitates the "destruction of cultures"?"Because we would all have to live under one set of rules and laws. Whose? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad.
So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag?
What about that necessitates the "destruction of cultures"?
Because we would all have to live under one set of rules and laws. Whose?"That doesn't follow. Culture is not simply the aggregate result of all laws. We know this because in any given country today there are multiple sub groups with their own identity and culture, which your definition would say is impossible. So, why would this change on a larger scale? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad.
So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag?
What about that necessitates the "destruction of cultures"?
Because we would all have to live under one set of rules and laws. Whose?
That doesn't follow. Culture is not simply the aggregate result of all laws. We know this because in any given country today there are multiple sub groups with their own identity and culture, which your definition would say is impossible.
So, why would this change on a larger scale?"Lol, so there is no dilution of culture when a group moves to another country and they are forced to follow that country’s laws? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have an answer to the question posed however do any of you think we will ever end up with a one earth state, planet earth just like startrek where people look back in disbelief that the earth was once full of sovereign states, please forgive the geeky element One people ,one nation under one flag is inevitable.The new world order is coming.
Ye and we could call it Oceaniaexcept iirc there were three states. And we were aligned to the US versus Europe (some of the time). And the powers which be used such conflicts to control the proles.
But will admit it’s been a while since I read 1984. So may have miss remembered a lot of this.
Yes there were 3 states but what I was getting at is that if a state gets too big and powerful it has too much control over the people and I don’t think they were actually at war but used the threat of war to control people. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, it was a throwaway remark.
What I find paradoxical is that some people, such as the poster above, who are quick to call people out for xenophobia, often based on nothing, would rejoice in the destruction of nations and different cultures
Destruction of nations and cultures?
Stop making things up, there's a good lad.
So how else do you create one people, one nation under one flag?
What about that necessitates the "destruction of cultures"?
Because we would all have to live under one set of rules and laws. Whose?
That doesn't follow. Culture is not simply the aggregate result of all laws. We know this because in any given country today there are multiple sub groups with their own identity and culture, which your definition would say is impossible.
So, why would this change on a larger scale?
Lol, so there is no dilution of culture when a group moves to another country and they are forced to follow that country’s laws? "Cultures can and do change, calling it dilution betrays a profound lack of understanding of what culture is - but that isn't the same as what you were arguing. You were arguing that cultures would be "destroyed". So, again, what about a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Destroying? Changing is more like it." I don’t disagree. But it’s doing something very similar to what Ben is referring to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Destroying? Changing is more like it. I don’t disagree. But it’s doing something very similar to what Ben is referring to. " Destroy/change is the same thing really and the only way one world would be a success is to homogenise all cultures into one new one, thereby seeing the disappearance of some. The cannibals of Papua New Guinea might take some convincing though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way one world would be a success is to homogenise all cultures into one new one, thereby seeing the disappearance of some. " That's a supposition you've done very little work in making the case for. No work, to be quite honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the UK culture change once we’ve left the EU ?" No | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way one world would be a success is to homogenise all cultures into one new one, thereby seeing the disappearance of some. That's a supposition you've done very little work in making the case for. No work, to be quite honest." Whatever, go and walk down Riyadh high street with your scantily clad boyfriend and a bottle of whiskey then tell me I’m wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the UK culture change once we’ve left the EU ? No " so changes as being par of a super state who set the laws is one way then ? Or would staying in the EU not has changed the culture ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the UK culture change once we’ve left the EU ? No so changes as being par of a super state who set the laws is one way then ? Or would staying in the EU not has changed the culture ?" Leaving the EU doesn’t change change the culture, we are still European | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Will the UK culture change once we’ve left the EU ? No so changes as being par of a super state who set the laws is one way then ? Or would staying in the EU not has changed the culture ? Leaving the EU doesn’t change change the culture, we are still European " but under different rules. So I think your saying rules don’t dictate culture. But for rules to work, you need to have the same culture. At least we can take destruction of culture off the reasons why FoM is bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way one world would be a success is to homogenise all cultures into one new one, thereby seeing the disappearance of some. That's a supposition you've done very little work in making the case for. No work, to be quite honest. Whatever, go and walk down Riyadh high street with your scantily clad boyfriend and a bottle of whiskey then tell me I’m wrong " You're wrong, and I don't need to leave the house to tell you that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. " So which laws would you like the world to adopt? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt?" What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false." More like culture dictates the laws | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws " so we will have broadly the same laws as Europe as we’re all European. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws so we will have broadly the same laws as Europe as we’re all European. "Broadly yes, is that a problem? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws " Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. " Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! And I haven’t changed the goal posts at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! And I haven’t changed the goal posts at all " You always move the goal posts!
China and India work under one set of laws, and one currency, and yet they are both more than double the population size of the whole of the EU. Are trying to say that the Asians can do it but the Europeans can't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! And I haven’t changed the goal posts at all You always move the goal posts!
China and India work under one set of laws, and one currency, and yet they are both more than double the population size of the whole of the EU. Are trying to say that the Asians can do it but the Europeans can't? "What the hell are you on about  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! " You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here." You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? That really is scraping the barrel for an argument. I don’t know why I’m discussing culture with someone who has no respect for other people and cultures anyway because he feels entitled and is white. Go and learn a language, it might make you a better person and better able to understand culture. Yes, I am done with this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! And I haven’t changed the goal posts at all You always move the goal posts!
China and India work under one set of laws, and one currency, and yet they are both more than double the population size of the whole of the EU. Are trying to say that the Asians can do it but the Europeans can't? "India and China have populations of 1.3bn, Europe only 500m. If they can do it, why can't we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody have [credible] material on why Europe (Eu and it’s earlier forms) was created. I’ve skimmed Fredrick Forsyth’s opinion piece and surprised he’s claiming it was because people saw democracy as being the reason nazis got in power. My history isn’t the hottest but I thought it was a lot more complicated than that... they managed to leverage a small foothold by getting laws passed which gave them more power than they intended. Less the fault of the voter. More the voted. " I asked my hubby to help me with this one as he speaks several languages and did his schooling abroad; together with a very large multi European family tree he can answer most questions "Europe"; even if it does not suit many forum readers. He says Forsyth is very right - after the WWII the powers in place in Germany and France distrusted the "voter" as they blamed them for not stopping the ultra right and left from "grabbing" power. K. Adenauer who was the first German PM after the war is on record stating that the voter had no idea and only the political and "money" class should be the ones who should "rule" countries. This thinking "filtered" through into the ideological thinking of the CDU and SPD the majority parties in Germany. They in turn "exported" this way of political thinking into the German-speaking countries and adjoining countries to Germany. The first "EU" the EEC was in principle an economic "EU" based pure on economics with the ECU as currency - a basket of currencies. However, this was not enough for Mr Kohl as he wished a greater "Europe" without the voter. He and his friend Mitterrand pushed for the signing of the new "European Constitution" (Maastrict 1992) the power of Europe lays with the commissioners, the president of the EU and the European Parliament - this constitution clear excludes the people of Europe as the poltical class of Germany and France distrust the voters. As at the time of the Maastrict Agreement 1992 Germany was in a state of decline due to the strength of the German Mark, France was blocked (till today) with the strength of the unions and with this new transfer of powers to Brussels both issues were solved in part. Germany was able to devalue the Mark with the exchange of 2 Marks for 1 Euro; the French unions were outdone with new EU working and union laws. My husband's family can claim to have seen both sides of democracy as part of his German relatives were sent to KZ's as they were members of the SPD, others were nazi's, his Italian relatives were forced to transfer ownership to the fascists, his Swiss grandfather was "earmarked" to be sent to a KZ, his father was badly wounded at Catterick Camp - so as said he sees both sides of the coin in this European "discussion". Adding to the fact his profession shows him clearly that the Euro is "dying" since the start of its' creation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? " In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anybody have [credible] material on why Europe (Eu and it’s earlier forms) was created. I’ve skimmed Fredrick Forsyth’s opinion piece and surprised he’s claiming it was because people saw democracy as being the reason nazis got in power. My history isn’t the hottest but I thought it was a lot more complicated than that... they managed to leverage a small foothold by getting laws passed which gave them more power than they intended. Less the fault of the voter. More the voted. I asked my hubby to help me with this one as he speaks several languages and did his schooling abroad; together with a very large multi European family tree he can answer most questions "Europe"; even if it does not suit many forum readers. " He can certainly give his opinion "Answers" might be taking it too far. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"..." Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is there only a single culture in the UK? Are the Scots the same as the Geordies and the Scousers the same as the people from the south Wales valleys? How about America? Are the people from Utah the same as the people from New Orleans, or the Californians the same as the Alaskans? The people from Mumbai and the people from Kohima? Different cultures all existing under the same laws. So which laws would you like the world to adopt? What would it matter, your contention that laws dictate culture is blatantly false. More like culture dictates the laws Which isn't what you've been arguing so far. And if you're done moving those goalposts, if we do accept your new line, how does this tie into the idea that a united earth would necessitate the destruction of cultures? After all, even if we taken it that as you mow say cultures dictate laws, we still have multiple cultures existing under the same set of laws. Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! And I haven’t changed the goal posts at all You always move the goal posts!
China and India work under one set of laws, and one currency, and yet they are both more than double the population size of the whole of the EU. Are trying to say that the Asians can do it but the Europeans can't?
India and China have populations of 1.3bn, Europe only 500m. If they can do it, why can't we? "Or maybe we can, and everything Ben says is all bollocks! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then? "What do you even imagine you're talking about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes and the elected government in each of the 27 countries puts forward its commissioners, the 27 heads of state are the council and the EU Parliament is voted in by the people. Seems pretty democratic to me. So you get what you vote for.... But it's all about the fish..and the colour of a passport. Twats... As you were. " I think you will find it was about a lot more than fish and the colour of a passport but eh oh you think what you like! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes and the elected government in each of the 27 countries puts forward its commissioners, the 27 heads of state are the council and the EU Parliament is voted in by the people. Seems pretty democratic to me. So you get what you vote for.... But it's all about the fish..and the colour of a passport. Twats... As you were. I think you will find it was about a lot more than fish and the colour of a passport but eh oh you think what you like! "The trouble is too many reasons for leaving are broad brush too engage with. These are some of the closest to specifics. Albeit they do help feed a view of pettiness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?"Maybe English isn't his first language. So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before. "Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe. "Relax fella no need to become so triggered I am sure you can cobble together a coherent argument from your ramblings .Its just nobody has seen one yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe. "I agree this is the challenge. We’re instinctively tribal living in a gloabalised world. As such the fears of our ancestors can result in as acting against our best interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
I agree this is the challenge. We’re instinctively tribal living in a gloabalised world. As such the fears of our ancestors can result in as acting against our best interests. "We left the tribe long agoSome countries are made up of hundreds of assimilated tribes .Its a natural progression.How many tribes made up these isles.How many exist today? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
Relax fella no need to become so triggered I am sure you can cobble together a coherent argument from your ramblings .Its just nobody has seen one yet. "I will relax when Spain get another
Ramblings they may be but I’ve found fantasies are best left to the bedroom.
What do you think of the Klingons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
I agree this is the challenge. We’re instinctively tribal living in a gloabalised world. As such the fears of our ancestors can result in as acting against our best interests.
We left the tribe long agoSome countries are made up of hundreds of assimilated tribes .Its a natural progression.How many tribes made up these isles.How many exist today?"There are 3 in our town | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My reason for leaving ...well I never wanted in it in the first place . this federal state of Europe was predicted long ago . the simple fact is they've got too big for their boots . come on Italy ,your next .lets show these beauracrats we mean business.they've had their day . " Then why were Italy begging the EU to sort out the migrant situation? They are becoming more reliant on the EU, not walking away | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe. "Or India, or China? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
Or India, or China? "Yes apparently it’s wonderful to be a woman there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe. "Ahh, so what we have here isn't so much an argument, as it is a failure of imagination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
Or India, or China?
Yes apparently it’s wonderful to be a woman there "youre conflating points. I believe their position is it’s a huge society. Not that the rules are good. Or are you saying their approach is a necessary condition for a multi tribe approach to have any chance of success ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
Or India, or China?
Yes apparently it’s wonderful to be a woman there "Your argument is that smaller groups/cultures/tribes etc. make for better governance. What proof do you have for this? To take your example of it being "wonderful" for women in India, do you think the situation is significantly different in neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan? If your theory was correct, we would see a much better treatment of women in these smaller, more mono-cultural societies. If that is not the case, it shows your theory to be bullshit. On a slightly seperate note, what size country do you think is perfect, what size is big but manageable, and what size country is too large to be managed? Also, is your argument specific to population size, or also geographic spread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Yes but not the whole bleedin world under one! If you forced some subcultures to conform to the majority view of law and morality then that subculture and what makes them unique would simply disappear! You're making an argument but not backing it up at all. We have loads of current, real world, examples that this is not the case. The UK, being a country of countries, is a prime example. Despite living under the same laws, for hundreds of years, the Scots, Welsh, and northern Irish have not become culturally indistinct from each other. To take NI as a specific example, despite living under laws that suited Protestants, the Catholic population has remained distinctly so, ever since the plantations. You've utterly failed to make your argument, and you've been indulged with your constant goalposts moving. Unless you've got something better than what you've shown so far, I think you're done here. You are describing Catholics and Protestants as culturally different? In the context of northern Ireland, absolutely. And if that's making you incredulous you might remember something euphemistically called "the troubles"... Oh, so having different cultures living together leads to ‘troublles’ then?
What do you even imagine you're talking about?
Maybe English isn't his first language.
So I've yet to see an argument against one people under one flag and World governance.It seems. an inevitable transition from nation states and duo states All cultures can be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to the collective as it has always happened since the time of Rome and before.
Bi lingual
No it hasn’t.
And if you want to go back to history, why mention Rome? What about the USSR or Yugoslavia
Never gonna happen son, in times of trouble or scarce resources people will always revert back to their ‘own ‘ culture or tribe.
Or India, or China?
Yes apparently it’s wonderful to be a woman there youre conflating points. I believe their position is it’s a huge society. Not that the rules are good. Or are you saying their approach is a necessary condition for a multi tribe approach to have any chance of success ?"I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? Basically I am saying that the world is a wonderful place because of its diversity. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures and is xenophobic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New World Order or one world governing body is just another way of saying dictatorship " What a moronic statement with no understanding of either dictatorship, nor democracy. It is however an obvious trolling technique to use when your arguements have failed and you can no longer answer the questions put to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New World Order or one world governing body is just another way of saying dictatorship What a moronic statement with no understanding of either dictatorship, nor democracy. It is however an obvious trolling technique to use when your arguements have failed and you can no longer answer the questions put to you. " Moronic statement? If you have done any research on the matter you will find it is the view of most people and political ‘experts ‘ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New World Order or one world governing body is just another way of saying dictatorship What a moronic statement with no understanding of either dictatorship, nor democracy. It is however an obvious trolling technique to use when your arguements have failed and you can no longer answer the questions put to you. Moronic statement? If you have done any research on the matter you will find it is the view of most people and political ‘experts ‘" Yes, moronic trolling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New World Order or one world governing body is just another way of saying dictatorship What a moronic statement with no understanding of either dictatorship, nor democracy. It is however an obvious trolling technique to use when your arguements have failed and you can no longer answer the questions put to you. Moronic statement? If you have done any research on the matter you will find it is the view of most people and political ‘experts ‘ Yes, moronic trolling. " And that wasn’t? I will not reply to any more of your posts because your sole intention on this forum is to attract abuse and close down debate. Have a nice day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New World Order or one world governing body is just another way of saying dictatorship What a moronic statement with no understanding of either dictatorship, nor democracy. It is however an obvious trolling technique to use when your arguements have failed and you can no longer answer the questions put to you. Moronic statement? If you have done any research on the matter you will find it is the view of most people and political ‘experts ‘ Yes, moronic trolling. And that wasn’t? I will not reply to any more of your posts because your sole intention on this forum is to attract abuse and close down debate. Have a nice day " How very convenient for you, now you don't have to explain the differences between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh that proved your arguments were fatally flawed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures and is xenophobic " An argument you are continually unable to backup in the slightest. Whether you're being serious or just trolling, you need to try harder. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? " This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make " Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? " It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. " To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures " you’ve not shown this to be true yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. " I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history?" But it’s your argument ?
But I will indulge. Shall we return to the tribes of the Iron Age ? Or is there a place I need to stop reading where we were in an ideal of multicultural living ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? But it’s your argument ?
But I will indulge. Shall we return to the tribes of the Iron Age ? Or is there a place I need to stop reading where we were in an ideal of multicultural living ?"Don’t understand your question. I think you are using the term multicultural in the wrong context. Even the head of the EU Merkel says multiculturalism doesn’t work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? But it’s your argument ?
But I will indulge. Shall we return to the tribes of the Iron Age ? Or is there a place I need to stop reading where we were in an ideal of multicultural living ?
Don’t understand your question. I think you are using the term multicultural in the wrong context. Even the head of the EU Merkel says multiculturalism doesn’t work "is it a defined word ? Indulge me in the right context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history?" Once again, I'd like to point you to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? Once again, I'd like to point you to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." And once again I’d like to point you to the ‘troubles’ if as you say, two different cultures are living together | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? Once again, I'd like to point you to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And once again I’d like to point you to the ‘troubles’ if as you say, two different cultures are living together " That doesn't follow. Try again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? Once again, I'd like to point you to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And once again I’d like to point you to the ‘troubles’ if as you say, two different cultures are living together That doesn't follow. Try again." Doesn’t follow? You say that different cultures can live together ( catholic and protestant are not different cultures by the way ) but you say they are different and that is what has caused what is ‘euphomistically’ called the ‘troubles ‘. So you are kinda contradicting yourself son | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m saying that half the world doesn’t even treat half its population fairly. What chance would a small subculture have? This suggests larger populations have a better chance of fairness than a small subculture. Which I’m pretty sure is not the point you’re trying to make Would you say that America is a better place today because of the slaughter of the Indians? It’s a different place. Its also a nonsequiter. Thus isn’t cultures living under one law but one culture invading another. To want to lump all people together under one law would be to destroy cultures you’ve not shown this to be true yet. I don’t have to. Have you never read any history? Once again, I'd like to point you to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And once again I’d like to point you to the ‘troubles’ if as you say, two different cultures are living together That doesn't follow. Try again. Doesn’t follow? You say that different cultures can live together ( catholic and protestant are not different cultures by the way ) but you say they are different and that is what has caused what is ‘euphomistically’ called the ‘troubles ‘. So you are kinda contradicting yourself son" Oh good lord, you'd try the patience of a saint with your dishonesty. The point of bringing up NI, in particular, was to show that despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, despite living under one law, neither culture was destroyed or diluted. To the point that both sides came to violence because of how the protestants mistreated the Catholics. If your theory was true, the four hundreds of years since the Ulster plantations in which both cultures had lived under the same law should have created a homogeneous people, making the troubles impossible. It's particularly telling that you're berating people for not "read(ing) a history book" but you have no fucking clue about the history of the country you're from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*awaits shift of goal posts to being about violence rather than destruction* " The point is, he wants it both ways. Catholics and Protestants in the UK are not different cultures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*awaits shift of goal posts to being about violence rather than destruction* The point is, he wants it both ways. Catholics and Protestants in the UK are not different cultures. " The history of Northern Ireland would beg to differ. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*awaits shift of goal posts to being about violence rather than destruction* The point is, he wants it both ways. Catholics and Protestants in the UK are not different cultures. The history of Northern Ireland would beg to differ." Why not the history of England? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*awaits shift of goal posts to being about violence rather than destruction* The point is, he wants it both ways. Catholics and Protestants in the UK are not different cultures. The history of Northern Ireland would beg to differ. Why not the history of England?" Because Northern Ireland was the specific example being used. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*awaits shift of goal posts to being about violence rather than destruction* The point is, he wants it both ways. Catholics and Protestants in the UK are not different cultures. The history of Northern Ireland would beg to differ. Why not the history of England? Because Northern Ireland was the specific example being used." Why? Are Catholics and Protestants in England different cultures? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
