https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/france-presidential-candidate-le-pen-warns-against-sending-weapons-ukraine-1937695-2022-04-15

Melmoth, what are you
planning to do about it?

dk

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:35:41 PM UTC-7, Dan Koren wrote:
> https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/france-presidential-candidate-le-pen-warns-against-sending-weapons-ukraine-1937695-2022-04-15
>

https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article260382477.html

Melmoth? How many
times do you plan to
vote ?!?

dk

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:35:41 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/france-presidential-candidate-le-pen-warns-against-sending-weapons-ukraine-1937695-2022-04-15
>
> Melmoth, what are you
> planning to do about it?
>
> dk

Le Pen never gets elected, and she is making sure she won't.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:47:10 PM UTC-7, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:35:41 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/france-presidential-candidate-le-pen-warns-against-sending-weapons-ukraine-1937695-2022-04-15
> >
> > Melmoth, what are you planning to do about it?
>
> Le Pen never gets elected, and she is making sure she won't.
>

I hope you are right. Nevertheless, one
must prepare for the worst! Remember
Brexit was not supposed to happen, nor
was McDonald goin to be elected. I am
already stashing away tuna cans and
Q-tips!

dk

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:47:10 PM UTC-7, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:35:41 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.indiatoday.in/world/russia-ukraine-war/story/france-presidential-candidate-le-pen-warns-against-sending-weapons-ukraine-1937695-2022-04-15
> >
> > Melmoth, what are you planning to do about it?
>
> Le Pen never gets elected, and she is making sure she won't.

I hope you are right. Nevertheless, one
must prepare for the worst! Remember
Brexit was not supposed to happen, nor
was McDonald going to be elected. I am
already stashing away tuna cans and
Q-tips!

dk

Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> Melmoth, what are you
> planning to do about it?

If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
good hundred thousand discs...
All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
etc...
You lucky guy !...

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > Melmoth, what are you
> > planning to do about it?
> If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> good hundred thousand discs...
> All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
> etc...
> You lucky guy !...

Clever!

You want to make me vote against her?

Unfortunately for you, I cannot vote in
the French elections. You would have
to find others to bribe! ;-)

dk

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > Melmoth, what are you
> > planning to do about it?
> If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> good hundred thousand discs...
> All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
> etc...
> You lucky guy !...

Aren't you going to unleash your army of
cattle, hogs and armoured escargots
against her ?!?

dk

On 4/16/2022 5:11 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
>> Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
>>> Melmoth, what are you
>>> planning to do about it?
>> If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
>> ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
>> good hundred thousand discs...
>> All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
>> pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
>> Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
>> etc...
>> You lucky guy !...
>
> Aren't you going to unleash your army of
> cattle, hogs and armoured escargots
> against her ?!?
>
> dk

This guy is ready:

https://cdn.thisiswhyimbroke.com/images/guinea-pig-knight-armor.jpg

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 4:30:03 AM UTC-4, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > Melmoth, what are you
> > planning to do about it?
> If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> good hundred thousand discs...
> All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
> etc...
> You lucky guy !...

please send to me even if she does NOT win:-) ( but no Brendel)!

AB

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:30:03 PM UTC+10, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > Melmoth, what are you
> > planning to do about it?
> If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> good hundred thousand discs...
> All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini...Mengelberg...Schuricte
> etc...
> You lucky guy !...

Fear not, Melmoth! Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jeanne Balibar, Thomas Dutronc and Fabrice Luchini have fearlessly announced their intention to vote for Emmanuel Macron and are calling their fellow-citizens to do the same, to preserve the French spirit of resistance and generosity.

Older readers might remember that Mme Gainsbourg is the daughter of actress and chanteuse Jane Birkin and dirty old man Serge Gainsbourg, Mme Balibar is the daughter of a celebrated mathematician who acted her socks off in Jacques Rivette's much underrated film "Va Savoir", M. Dutronc is the daughter of statuesque sixties songstress Francoise Hardy and shifty-eyed bastard Jacques Dutronc, and M. Luchini finally got to put his hand on Claire's knee.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:30:03 PM UTC+10, MELMOTH wrote:
> > Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > > Melmoth, what are you
> > > planning to do about it?
> > If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> > ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> > good hundred thousand discs...
> > All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> > pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> > Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini....Mengelberg...Schuricte
> > etc...
> > You lucky guy !...
> Fear not, Melmoth! Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jeanne Balibar,
> Thomas Dutronc and Fabrice Luchini have fearlessly
> announced their intention to vote for Emmanuel Macron
> and are calling their fellow-citizens to do the same, to
> preserve the French spirit of resistance and generosity.
>
> Older readers might remember that Mme Gainsbourg is
> the daughter of actress and chanteuse Jane Birkin and
> dirty old man Serge Gainsbourg, Mme Balibar is the
> daughter of a celebrated mathematician who acted her
> socks off in Jacques Rivette's much underrated film "Va
> Savoir", M. Dutronc is the daughter of statuesque sixties
> songstress Francoise Hardy and shifty-eyed bastard
> Jacques Dutronc, and M. Luchini finally got to put his
> hand on Claire's knee.
>

There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
McDonald?

As a side note, your "statuesque" notions do not seem
consistent with Michelangelo's or Rodin's! ;-)

dk

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:30:03 PM UTC+10, MELMOTH wrote:
> > > Dan Koren a émis l'idée suivante :
> > > > Melmoth, what are you
> > > > planning to do about it?
> > > If this bitch "wins" (NO "chance"), I promise to send you immediately
> > > ALL my record collection...(CDs, Cassettes, LPs, tapes, FLAC files...A
> > > good hundred thousand discs...
> > > All my Arrau...Lipatti...Haskil...Trouard...Brendel...All these
> > > pianists that you like so much...My five integrals of Beethoven and
> > > Bach...Varèse...Schönberg...Monteux...Scherchen...Toscanini....Mengelberg...Schuricte
> > > etc...
> > > You lucky guy !...
> > Fear not, Melmoth! Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jeanne Balibar,
> > Thomas Dutronc and Fabrice Luchini have fearlessly
> > announced their intention to vote for Emmanuel Macron
> > and are calling their fellow-citizens to do the same, to
> > preserve the French spirit of resistance and generosity.
> >
> > Older readers might remember that Mme Gainsbourg is
> > the daughter of actress and chanteuse Jane Birkin and
> > dirty old man Serge Gainsbourg, Mme Balibar is the
> > daughter of a celebrated mathematician who acted her
> > socks off in Jacques Rivette's much underrated film "Va
> > Savoir", M. Dutronc is the daughter of statuesque sixties
> > songstress Francoise Hardy and shifty-eyed bastard
> > Jacques Dutronc, and M. Luchini finally got to put his
> > hand on Claire's knee.
> >
> There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> McDonald?
>
> As a side note, your "statuesque" notions do not seem
> consistent with Michelangelo's or Rodin's! ;-)
>

I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the British public decided that they didn't want to be stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels government regulation instead. They certainly couldn't see, to take an egregiously absurd situation, why they should help to pay for the annual peregrination of the EU Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg and back just to appease the French who insisted that Strasbourg, not Brussels, is "the City of Europe". The paradox is that the Brits, unlike virtually everybody else in Europe, enforced EU regulations to the letter, which could and did lead to the closure of many small businesses.

As for Adolf, who did his bit to make Strasbourg the City of Europe by annexing it, he never actually won a majority in the Reichstag. Mussolini's dictatorship was probably a refreshing change from Italian parliamentary impotence and corruption: if he'd had the sense, like Franco, to remain neutral in 1939, he would probably have survived the war, and he would not have had to appease Hitler by passing antisemitic legislation.

Turning to artistic matters, I only once saw the Goddess of Les Trentes Annees Glorieuses in performance - on TV - and only her lips and her eyelashes moved. A bit like Wilma Flintstone but sexier. Here she is, kicking out the jams a little:

<https://vimeo.com/182234793>

I also owe an apology to M. Fabrice Lucchini: it was Jean-Claude Brialy who got to touch Claire's knee on screen. A very young M. Lucchini, as Claire's brainless boyfriend, got to touch both knees and most of the rest of her as well:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnaIs8LAak>

Andrew Clarke
Canberra`

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > McDonald?
> >
> I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> British public decided that they didn't want to be
> stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> government regulation instead.

I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
alone in government, could be bothered to
do this. Do you see any evidence to the
contrary?

dk

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > > McDonald?
> > >
> > I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> > offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> > government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> > British public decided that they didn't want to be
> > stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> > government regulation instead.
> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
> alone in government, could be bothered to
> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
> contrary?
>
> dk

Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.

How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 18:48:09 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > > McDonald?
> > >
> > I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> > offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> > government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> > British public decided that they didn't want to be
> > stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> > government regulation instead.
> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
> alone in government, could be bothered to
> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
> contrary?
>
> dk

Considering that virtually half the vote was for remain, alone is reason that rationality was exercised by many. Brexit was a tragic mistake railroaded thru by people such as BoJo and Farage, people you couldn't count on to run a kiddie's lemonade stand.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 11:26:43 PM UTC+10, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 18:48:09 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > > > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > > > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > > > McDonald?
> > > >
> > > I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> > > offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> > > government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> > > British public decided that they didn't want to be
> > > stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> > > government regulation instead.
> > I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
> > mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
> > cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
> > does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
> > alone in government, could be bothered to
> > do this. Do you see any evidence to the
> > contrary?
> >
> > dk
> Considering that virtually half the vote was for remain, alone is reason that rationality was exercised by many. Brexit was a tragic mistake railroaded thru by people such as BoJo and Farage, people you couldn't count on to run a kiddie's lemonade stand.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

According to Wikipedia the pro-Brexit vote was 51.9%. Meanwhile there were mutterings of Frexit among the anti-Macron gilets jaunes and there is some anti-EU feeling in Italy, I believe.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 21:43:40 UTC+10, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > > > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > > > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > > > McDonald?
> > > >
> > > I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> > > offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> > > government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> > > British public decided that they didn't want to be
> > > stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> > > government regulation instead.
> > I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
> > mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
> > cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
> > does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
> > alone in government, could be bothered to
> > do this. Do you see any evidence to the
> > contrary?
> >
> > dk
> Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.

Then why isn't it?

> How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?

A few million dollars is not even chickenfeed. The UK received back huge amounts for development in a wide range of areas. Not to mention trade with few hassles, free movement, and being part of a power bloc. Now the decisions are made by Eton educated toffs who clearly do not have the welfare of the country at heart. I'd rather be dictated by Toronto than the present shower of landed buffoons.
If you join a club you change from within, or abide by rules that might seem to be not the best for some, and not exit the club to be ruled by changes that only benefit the few. Brexit is a disaster. I hope Oz chooses wisely on May21.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 11:52:14 PM UTC+10, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 21:43:40 UTC+10, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
> > > > > fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
> > > > > Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
> > > > > McDonald?
> > > > >
> > > > I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
> > > > offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
> > > > government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
> > > > British public decided that they didn't want to be
> > > > stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
> > > > government regulation instead.
> > > I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
> > > mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
> > > cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
> > > does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
> > > alone in government, could be bothered to
> > > do this. Do you see any evidence to the
> > > contrary?
> > >
> > > dk
> > Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.
> Then why isn't it?

Although the result of the referendum was not legally binding, the Government felt that it was morally bound to accept it.

> > How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?
> A few million dollars is not even chickenfeed. The UK received back huge amounts for development in a wide range of areas. Not to mention trade with few hassles, free movement, and being part of a power bloc. Now the decisions are made by Eton educated toffs who clearly do not have the welfare of the country at heart. I'd rather be dictated by Toronto than the present shower of landed buffoons.

I very much doubt that Mr Rishi Sunak and Ms Priti Patel are Eton educated toffs. Theresa May , the then Conservative prime minister certainly wasn't.. I am not sure that even Boris Johnson is the owner of a landed estate.

> If you join a club you change from within, or abide by rules that might seem to be not the best for some, and not exit the club to be ruled by changes that only benefit the few. Brexit is a disaster. I hope Oz chooses wisely on May21.

It is news to me that Australia is planning to leave the European Union or is ruled by Eton-educated toffs.

Meanwhile, the feeling among Brexiteers and others was that reform of the EU from within was impossible, given the overwhelming influence of France and Germany. As I have written before, I don't think that anybody in the UK would have objected to the EU if it had stuck to its original function as a free trade area. There are certainly problems enough with a single currency: countries like Greece that got into trouble couldn't devalue. There were even more concerns about the EU's lack of accountability, with their financial reports being rejected by independent accontants year after year. When there was talk about EU creating its own armed forces, serious alarm bells began to ring. Many people think that Europe is simply too complex to be run by a central government in Brussels, a position I tend to hold myself.

Finally, many countries in the EU have a tradition of etatisme. Britain, like the USA, does not.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On 2022-04-17 7:43 a.m., Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 11:26:43 PM UTC+10, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 18:48:09 UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
>>>>> fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
>>>>> Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
>>>>> McDonald?
>>>>>
>>>> I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
>>>> offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
>>>> government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
>>>> British public decided that they didn't want to be
>>>> stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
>>>> government regulation instead.
>>> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
>>> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
>>> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
>>> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
>>> alone in government, could be bothered to
>>> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
>>> contrary?
>>>
>>> dk
>> Considering that virtually half the vote was for remain, alone is reason that rationality was exercised by many. Brexit was a tragic mistake railroaded thru by people such as BoJo and Farage, people you couldn't count on to run a kiddie's lemonade stand.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
> According to Wikipedia the pro-Brexit vote was 51.9%. Meanwhile there were mutterings of Frexit among the anti-Macron gilets jaunes and there is some anti-EU feeling in Italy, I believe.
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra
And in that 51.9% there was a significant number who protest-voted,
never expecting to "win".

On 4/17/22 4:43 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
>>>> fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
>>>> Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
>>>> McDonald?
>>>>
>>> I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
>>> offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
>>> government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
>>> British public decided that they didn't want to be
>>> stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
>>> government regulation instead.
>> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
>> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
>> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
>> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
>> alone in government, could be bothered to
>> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
>> contrary?
>>
>> dk
>
> Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.
>
> How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra
I think iyou probably meant to say several *BILLIONS* of dollars, but in
either case, no, I wouldn't--and I don't blame the Brits.

Bob Harper

On 4/17/22 7:31 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 11:52:14 PM UTC+10, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 21:43:40 UTC+10, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
>>>>>> fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
>>>>>> Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
>>>>>> McDonald?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
>>>>> offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
>>>>> government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
>>>>> British public decided that they didn't want to be
>>>>> stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
>>>>> government regulation instead.
>>>> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
>>>> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
>>>> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
>>>> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
>>>> alone in government, could be bothered to
>>>> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
>>>> contrary?
>>>>
>>>> dk
>>> Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.
>> Then why isn't it?
>
> Although the result of the referendum was not legally binding, the Government felt that it was morally bound to accept it.
>
>>> How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?
>> A few million dollars is not even chickenfeed. The UK received back huge amounts for development in a wide range of areas. Not to mention trade with few hassles, free movement, and being part of a power bloc. Now the decisions are made by Eton educated toffs who clearly do not have the welfare of the country at heart. I'd rather be dictated by Toronto than the present shower of landed buffoons.
>
> I very much doubt that Mr Rishi Sunak and Ms Priti Patel are Eton educated toffs. Theresa May , the then Conservative prime minister certainly wasn't. I am not sure that even Boris Johnson is the owner of a landed estate.
>
>> If you join a club you change from within, or abide by rules that might seem to be not the best for some, and not exit the club to be ruled by changes that only benefit the few. Brexit is a disaster. I hope Oz chooses wisely on May21.
>
> It is news to me that Australia is planning to leave the European Union or is ruled by Eton-educated toffs.
>
> Meanwhile, the feeling among Brexiteers and others was that reform of the EU from within was impossible, given the overwhelming influence of France and Germany. As I have written before, I don't think that anybody in the UK would have objected to the EU if it had stuck to its original function as a free trade area. There are certainly problems enough with a single currency: countries like Greece that got into trouble couldn't devalue. There were even more concerns about the EU's lack of accountability, with their financial reports being rejected by independent accontants year after year. When there was talk about EU creating its own armed forces, serious alarm bells began to ring. Many people think that Europe is simply too complex to be run by a central government in Brussels, a position I tend to hold myself.
>
> Finally, many countries in the EU have a tradition of etatisme. Britain, like the USA, does not.
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra
>
Hear, hear!

Bob Harper

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:31:07 AM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Finally, many countries in the EU have a tradition
> of etatisme. Britain, like the USA, does not.
>

?!?

On 4/17/2022 7:43 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:48:09 PM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:49:38 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to believe people vote rationally. In
>>>> fact, the opposite seems to be true. Remember Brexit?
>>>> Remember Hitler? Remember Mussolini? Remember
>>>> McDonald?
>>>>
>>> I think that Brexit was rational in the sense that having
>>> offloaded a whole lot of unnecessary Westminster
>>> government regulation under Lady Thatcher, the
>>> British public decided that they didn't want to be
>>> stuck with a whole lot of unnecessary Brussels
>>> government regulation instead.
>> I don't see all this as sufficiently "rational". To my
>> mind, rational means one has fully analyzed the
>> cost/benefit and the risk/reward equations. It
>> does not seem to me anyone in the UK, let
>> alone in government, could be bothered to
>> do this. Do you see any evidence to the
>> contrary?
>>
>> dk
>
> Yes I do. The Treasury had undoubtedly done its sums. The Government was pro-Remain. The Opposition was pro-Remain. The BBC was pro-Remain. The national press of whatever political pursuation was generally pro-Remain. Pro-Brexit campaigners like Nigel Farage were lampooned as reactionary petit bourgeois still living in the 1950s. I think it can be said that if the matter had not gone to a referendum, Britain would still be in the EU.
>
> How many Americans would like to live under a political union in which their State and Federal governments were bound by treaty to automatically pass into law regulations created by a parliament and bureaucracy established in Toronto, under the authority of a Commission of retired Canadian and Latin American polititians, passed by a fairly toothless parliament, and enacted by a large and expensive bureaucracy over which the average US citizen would little or no control, but which devours a percentage of their Federal taxes in the form of an annual subvention, amounting to millions of dollars?
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra

Of course, we in the U.S. won't accept the authority of the World Court.
And that's BOTH Democratic and Republican administrations.
And to state the obvious, blue states would never accept regulations of
red states, nor the reverse.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-7, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Of course, we in the U.S. won't accept
> the authority of the World Court.

Then why should any other nation
recognize the World Court?

dk