On 2021-12-19, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/12/2021 15:50, alister wrote:
>
>> FPTP needs to be replaced
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> It always - nearly always gives a clear working majority to a single party.
> People who say it isn't 'fair' have a childish view of democracy. It
> isn't there to 'represent the people' it is there to be able to sack the
> executive without a (civil) war.

Interesting outlook. Thanks to FPTP here in Canada, it's standard
for politicians to get elected with 40% of the popular vote (i.e.
60% of voters vote against them but they exploit vote-splitting).
Combine this with our typical 60% voter turnout, and you have
politicians claiming "a mandate from the masses" when only one
eligible voter in four actually voted for them.

I don't believe in voting for someone who will benefit us the most;
he doesn't exist. I vote for the one who will hurt us the least -
although in extreme cases I'll hold my nose and vote for the one
most likely to stop the one who could hurt us the most.

"No matter who you vote for, the politicians always get in."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 10:56:59 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Ultimately British democracy is a delicate balance between looking after
> an elite who fund the party, and an electorate who have to be convinced
> it is working in their best interests.

I presume you refer to the UK when you say Britain (if you're going
to be careful about EU and Europe ...) - although AFAICT almost all the
sovereignty in the UK resides in England the other nations have very little.
Which is not too surprising since in principle all power resides in the
crown, which is represented by the reigning monarch, but the power is
wielded by the government in the name of the crown by permission of the
crown, which AIUI was not granted enthusiastically and can, at least in
principle, be revoked. This arrangement leads to oddities like UK law not
applying within the boundaries Cambridge colleges while it does apply to
the legal entities that operate their finances.

> That balance does not exist in the EU. And because the nations have

Others have pointed you to the democratic underpinnings of the EU,
but it is fair to say that it has even less impact on daily life than
national government and people are even less well informed or interested -
but at least it isn't treated like football support - "Who do you support
United or City ?".

> signed away their sovereignty, national elections make little difference.

The EU as an institution fundamentally exists as a mechanism for
the nations of Europe to relinquish sovereign rights together in the
interests of the people of Europe (admittedly that sometimes means the
people with fat wallets) - the initial sovereign right that started the
process was the right to wage war on each other (translation the right to
order mass murder of each other's people and theft of their property),
these days that extends to the right to control the movement of their
people, the right to control the movement of their people's money, the
right to control the movement of goods across their borders, the right to
manipulate their currency ... and people benefit every time the nations
give up a little more of their sovereign rights.

Ultimately the sovereign rights of nations need to become as
obsolete as the rights of feudal lords, which they are the remnant of. The
world is too small for nations, they do stupid things like fighting wars
and squabbling over resources. Look at the way the United States is
constantly in need of an enemy, whenever one goes away they have to find a
new one.

The EU is the only organisation in the world working in that
direction as such it has my approval warts and all - nothing is perfect but
it's a lot better than nationalism.

A thought - did anyone ever ask to join the UK or the British
Empire ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 20 Dec 2021 at 22:28:33 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/12/2021 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 19/12/2021 15:50, alister wrote:
>>>>> FPTP needs to be replaced
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes it does ...
>
>> It always - nearly always gives a clear working majority to a single party.
>> People who say it isn't 'fair' have a childish view of democracy. It
>> isn't there to 'represent the people' it is there to be able to sack the
>> executive without a (civil) war.
>
> In other words, it nearly always leads to an elected dictatorship for
> four years.

After which there's a chance to remove it, which is the point.

I saw an example of how coalitions can be bad during my (brief) stint as a
parish councillor. Before 1997, Cambridgeshire County Council was run by a
Lib-Lab coalition. During that time, Social Services was a mess and there were
many instances of child neglect being poorly handled with some instances of
death resulting. I asked the local Lib-Dem County Councillor why this was. He
thought for a minute and then said that it was most likely due to the lack of
clear political control of Social Services. Each of the two parties had its
own appointee there, but no one was in overall charge.

With an elected dictatorship, you know where the buck stops. I detested the
Blair Labour Govt, but at least you knew who was in charge and it's up to the
Opposition to point out it's failings.

The EU is organised in such a way that there *is* *no* opposition. And you
call *that* democratic.

--
Tim

On 20 Dec 2021 at 22:30:31 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/12/2021 17:57, TimS wrote:
>>
>> Unlike with the EU where the executive isn't sackable within the meaning of
>> the Act. Indeed, in the case of its president, we don't even know why or how
>> she was selected, by what process, and whether there were any other
>> candidates.
>
> See the links given in my reply to the The Unnatural Pillock for how the
> EU system of government really works.

We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.

--
Tim

On 21/12/2021 09:20, TimS wrote:

>
> We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
> opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.
>

I'll vote for that!

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:43:32 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> Ultimately the sovereign rights of nations need to become as
> obsolete as the rights of feudal lords, which they are the remnant of.
> The world is too small for nations, they do stupid things like fighting
> wars and squabbling over resources. Look at the way the United States is
> constantly in need of an enemy, whenever one goes away they have to find
> a new one.
>
Spot on. Having just read David Abulafia's "The Great Sea" (its about
Mediterranean history from the Ionian era to the present) the fact that
the USA had a naval force in the Mediterranean fighting corsairs even
before its 25th anniversary really me sit up. I didn't know anything
about that and I bet not many US citizens do either.

On 20/12/2021 22:03, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> The salient point is that the MEPs have no power whatsoever to change
>> anything. They are neither the originators nor the passers of policy.
>> They are in effect an 'upper house' a senate, a house of lords, who
>> can at best stop legislation if they can be bothered to read it or
>> attend parliament. Most do not. It is a purely ceremonial position.
>> In the EU, the power is with the commissioners and the various
>> Presidents none of who undergo popular election. Like  every other
>> communist state a Party of bureacrats controls everything,  the
>> elections are just for show, and nothing ever changes in response to
>> popular demand.
>> Lobbyists from multinational corporations dictate policy.
>> The people are there to buy their product and shut up.
>
> When are you going to stop lying about the EU???!!!
>
When are you?

> This is how the EU actually works, either read and understand it, or
> don't bother and stop speaking out of your arse about things that you
> can't be arsed to understand:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
>

Those exactly confirms what I have said, the European parliament is an
'upper' house only - it does not debate policy, merely rubber stamps it.

The council has no power to initaiate or execute policy. it is just
another taklkingshop

Only the unelected commissioners initiate policy, and they do so
according to whatever takes their fancy, or whoever lines their bank
accounts

> In fact when are going to stop lying, full stop???!!!
>

I am not lying. You are.

> Like most countries, Britain does most of its trade with its nearest
> geographical neighbours,

No, it doesn't.

Given the high value low mass/volume of many goods, it does most of its
trade with whoever can produce the cheapest. Nearly all my non-UK
clothes are made in Pakistan or the far east. nearly all my
semiconductor products are made in te far east and nearly all my fuel
comes either from the North sea or from arab states.

Food used to come from the EU it is true, but not any more. Given the
behaviour of the EU the suppliers and customers have switched to UK
produce or Africa or even South America.

Only heavy and or bulky items are source from Europe, or speciality
products like wine and cheese.

and as our nearest geographical neighbours are
> in the EU, it never made any sense at all for us to leave,

total bollocks. trade is but one tiny part of it and trade is global.
for anyone who isn't a head in the sand dyed in the wool swivel eyed
begammoned little Europeaner.

Its time to move on and leave Kindergarten. The world is bigger than
Brussels.

the only
> reason we did so being the prevalence of bigoted and shameless liars
> like you.  If you don't like what is happening to the country now, blame
> yourself, because you've lied about the EU for decades, voted to leave
> it, and thereby voted to make this country poorer, so you have directly
> contributed to the shit we're in, so stop moaning and shut the fuck up.
>

I see you are indeed a head in the sand dyed in the wool swivel eyed
begammoned little Europeaner. And in total denial.

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 21/12/2021 09:20, TimS wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2021 at 22:30:31 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2021 17:57, TimS wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike with the EU where the executive isn't sackable within the meaning of
>>> the Act. Indeed, in the case of its president, we don't even know why or how
>>> she was selected, by what process, and whether there were any other
>>> candidates.
>>
>> See the links given in my reply to the The Unnatural Pillock for how the
>> EU system of government really works.
>
> We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
> opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.
>
And the irony is, that the links he supplied totally confirm that!

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 21/12/2021 10:08, Pancho wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 09:20, TimS wrote:
>
>>
>> We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
>> opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.
>>
>
>
> I'll vote for that!

You may. It will have no effect whatsoever.!

Hitler also came to power democratically, but he didn't leave power that
way.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 20/12/2021 22:43, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> And it is not even correct to say that the EU represents the citizens
>> of the 27 countries that still are in it. It doesn't. It represents a
>> narrow cadre of elitists, and some people who fund it to pass laws
>> favouring their (EU made) products.
>
> Stop lying about the EU, I'm going to keep posting these links until you
> stop speaking out of your arse:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
>

Thise completely provces my point. Have ytou actually READ them?

>> Its currency is a shambles and has plunged its southern states into
>> poverty and debt,
>
> Our currency fell on the Brexit vote and has never recovered since, so
> if the EU's currency is a shambles, ours must be even worse.
>

Not really, we dont havce te unemployment te EU hgas.

>> it has no army,
>
> It doesn't need one, and any sensible person would think that's a good
> thing.
>
>> it cannot police its borders as millions of middle eastern immigrants
>> flood in,
>
> I thought the general complaint was the immigrants were flooding into
> the UK, not Europe?  Otherwise why are they risking drowning crossing
> the Channel in unsuitable craft.

They are flooding into the UK VIA the EU.
Idiot,.

>
>> and it is now in a state of abject energy crisis because of it
>> reliance on toy windmills and solar panels.
>
> Bollocks, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
>

Well look at this

https://www.energylive.cloud/

how come energy prices are *5 times* what they are from coal or nuclear.,

> [snip usual The Unnatural Pillock whingeing]
>
>> Ultimately you have to ask whether a 19th century top down colonial
>> bureaucracy designed by an Italian communist is an appropriate way to
>> run a continent.
>
> A top down colonial bureaucracy is exactly how the UK is run, even
> though we don't really have colonies any more.
>

No, it isnt. You are more ignorant about UK politics than the EUs.
>> Time will tell.
>
> But, either way, you'll still be lying your arse off.
>
No, you are, but I will excuse that on the grounds that you are simply
to stupid to realise it. As is typical for fanatical EU supporters. All
emotion, no reason, they are right everyone else is wrong,. misled,
stupid, etc etc.

In reality its you elitists that drank the EU Koolaid, not people who
spent years considering their options before deciding to leave a corrupt
mafia style self-legalising protection racket.

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 21 Dec 2021 at 14:02:42 GMT, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid>
wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:43:32 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> Ultimately the sovereign rights of nations need to become as
>> obsolete as the rights of feudal lords, which they are the remnant of.
>> The world is too small for nations, they do stupid things like fighting
>> wars and squabbling over resources. Look at the way the United States is
>> constantly in need of an enemy, whenever one goes away they have to find
>> a new one.
>>
> Spot on. Having just read David Abulafia's "The Great Sea" (its about
> Mediterranean history from the Ionian era to the present) the fact that
> the USA had a naval force in the Mediterranean fighting corsairs even
> before its 25th anniversary really me sit up. I didn't know anything
> about that and I bet not many US citizens do either.

Are you positing this to be a bad thing? Perhaps you're unaware that the
Barbary Coast of North Africa (present-day Tunisia/Morocco) was a hotbed of
piracy back then. These pirates raided southern France, Malta, even as far as
England and Ireland, and those they captured were taken back and sold into
slavery. This is not even to mention the arabs of the middle-east, who raided
down much of the east coast of Africa, again with a view to capturing the
inhabitants to be sold as slaves.

Of course it's not PC to mention this, since we all know that slavery is all
the fault of whitey.

--
Tim

On 21/12/2021 04:59, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> I don't believe in voting for someone who will benefit us the most;
> he doesn't exist. I vote for the one who will hurt us the least -
> although in extreme cases I'll hold my nose and vote for the one
> most likely to stop the one who could hurt us the most.

And bravo to you.

I personally believe that you (and I am the same) are where modern
democracies are going.

The old guard still think it terms of 'tribal loyalties' and voters
based rigidly on class and responding to emotional narratives.

The shock here is that voters will swing massively in an instant to
wherever they can achieve the most. In the last by election the
achievement was to deliver a massive kick in the nuts to the party in
power, and they chose a completely different party from the normal
opposition, to do it.

In addition the emotional narratives are not working. People here were
happy to go along with 'Net Zero' till someone asked what it would
cost, and realised the government hadn't a clue, and those that did were
talking numbers that made COVID 19 borrowings pale into insignificance.

Suddenly everyone is talking nuclear, instead of renewables.

Governments do not get it right all the time. In fact governments -
elected and unelected - mostly muddle through prevaricating until the
'right' answer is blindingly obvious. Very often the people at the coal
face understand far better than remote bureaucrats what needs to be
done. Democracy is a way to remind the executive that their jobs are not
for life, and there are issues they need to address.

There is a also an issue of system size and scale. societies are complex
entities of considerable size, and variety, one size fits all top down
legislation by decree, as is the case in the EU, is a frighteningly
blunt instrument and is ponderously slow.

No one codes without block structure. You have small chunks of code that
perform simple small functions, so e.g. in a car the engine management
systems run the engine, the brake systems code runs the brakes the
climate control runs the aircon, and the driver doesn't have to drive
the car in every detail - merely to point it in the right direction and
make it go faster or slower. In short what works is a federation of
localised systems all working in harmony and the apex of that does not
interfere in what they do - merely sets a direction of the overall unit.

Consider the potential imposition of veganism across say the EU, for
alleged reasons of health and climate change.

Parts within the arctic circle cannot grow food, they rely on eating
animals that can eat the existing vegetation or marine life. The same
goes for other climates. Veganism is in fact an option for only
temperate to tropical agricultural lands with decent rainfall .

That's the kind of insanity you get. Imposition of 'renewable energy' -
solar power where there is no sun, windmills where there is no wind.

I voted to leave the EU primarily for one reason unique to me.

I wanted to stop this insane expensive gouging of the consumer to
produce energy from unreliable intermittent sources. I talked to my MP,
he said it is government policy, I talked to ministers, they said it was
an EU directive, I talked to my MEP, and he laughed and said 'we can't
stop it, we are only MEPS, we have no power to do anything, but the pay
is good!' And I asked 'where does the policy come from' And they said
'Siemens lobbied the commissioners along with Vattenfall, they are
making a fortune out of it, that's why the directive is not about carbon
dioxide, reduction at all, it is simply promoting a technology that is
very quick to make a fast profit on, and the Greens like, that means we
still burn just as much oil and gas, so the oil companies are sanguine too.'

That was when I realised that the only democratic path left to a
concerned UK citizens was to work tirelessly to leave the EU. People
make mistakes, and if you can't sack them when they keep on making them
why would they bother not to?

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 21/12/2021 08:43, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> The EU as an institution fundamentally exists as a mechanism for
> the nations of Europe to relinquish sovereign rights together in the
> interests of the people of Europe

Bless!

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

On 21/12/2021 15:17, TimS wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2021 at 14:02:42 GMT, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:43:32 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately the sovereign rights of nations need to become as
>>> obsolete as the rights of feudal lords, which they are the remnant of.
>>> The world is too small for nations, they do stupid things like fighting
>>> wars and squabbling over resources. Look at the way the United States is
>>> constantly in need of an enemy, whenever one goes away they have to find
>>> a new one.
>>>
>> Spot on. Having just read David Abulafia's "The Great Sea" (its about
>> Mediterranean history from the Ionian era to the present) the fact that
>> the USA had a naval force in the Mediterranean fighting corsairs even
>> before its 25th anniversary really me sit up. I didn't know anything
>> about that and I bet not many US citizens do either.
>
> Are you positing this to be a bad thing? Perhaps you're unaware that the
> Barbary Coast of North Africa (present-day Tunisia/Morocco) was a hotbed of
> piracy back then. These pirates raided southern France, Malta, even as far as
> England and Ireland, and those they captured were taken back and sold into
> slavery. This is not even to mention the arabs of the middle-east, who raided
> down much of the east coast of Africa, again with a view to capturing the
> inhabitants to be sold as slaves.
>
> Of course it's not PC to mention this, since we all know that slavery is all
> the fault of whitey.
>
There is also a theory, that the reason why Europe arise to dominance in
the middle ages is precisely because it comprised tens of little
principalities always at war with each other and looking for 'Lebensraum'.

The massive pace of technological development between 1935 and 2000 was
the direct result of pouring resources into warcraft, and the massive
spinoff of high tech that ensued .

Since then the direction has been all anti-technical , anti- science
irrational emotional kindergarten stuff.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:46:23 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> There is also a theory, that the reason why Europe arise to dominance in
> the middle ages is precisely because it comprised tens of little
> principalities always at war with each other and looking for 'Lebensraum'.

This seems like a very reasonable theory - and Europeans exploded
across the world because attacking the neighbours was becoming too
difficult/dangerous.

> The massive pace of technological development between 1935 and 2000 was
> the direct result of pouring resources into warcraft, and the massive
> spinoff of high tech that ensued .

For sure, and that has directly resulted in the world becoming too
small and fragile compared to our destructive capabilities for us to
indulge in hobbies like war - it is not been safe to pack a picnic and go
and watch the lads fight for a while now. These days it's best to watch from
a different continent by TV but it'll get dodgy sharing the same planet if
the more enthusiastic lads ever get their way.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 21/12/2021 14:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 22:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 19/12/2021 10:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> And it is not even correct to say that the EU represents the citizens
>>> of the 27 countries that still are in it. It doesn't. It represents a
>>> narrow cadre of elitists, and some people who fund it to pass laws
>>> favouring their (EU made) products.
>>
>> Stop lying about the EU, I'm going to keep posting these links until
>> you stop speaking out of your arse:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
>
> Thise completely provces my point. Have ytou actually READ them?

Yes, they prove that you're talking out out of your arse as usual.

>>> Its currency is a shambles and has plunged its southern states into
>>> poverty and debt,
>>
>> Our currency fell on the Brexit vote and has never recovered since, so
>> if the EU's currency is a shambles, ours must be even worse.
>
> Not really, we dont havce te unemployment te EU hgas.

What has unemployment to do with the currency? Attempt to move the
goalposts noted.

>>> it has no army,
>>
>> It doesn't need one, and any sensible person would think that's a good
>> thing.
>>
>>> it cannot police its borders as millions of middle eastern immigrants
>>> flood in,
>>
>> I thought the general complaint was the immigrants were flooding into
>> the UK, not Europe?  Otherwise why are they risking drowning crossing
>> the Channel in unsuitable craft.
>
> They are flooding into the UK VIA the EU.
> Idiot,.

Because it happens to lie between source and destination, idiot.

>>> and it is now in a state of abject energy crisis because of it
>>> reliance on toy windmills and solar panels.
>>
>> Bollocks, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
>
> Well look at this
>
> https://www.energylive.cloud/
>
> how come energy prices are *5 times* what they are from coal or nuclear.,

Usual hypocrisy, previously you and other have praised France for using
nuclear power, but the prices in France are the highest there; similarly
in the UK nuclear is the most expensive generating option, approximately
double the next most expensive, offshore wind.

>> [snip usual The Unnatural Pillock whingeing]
>>
>>> Ultimately you have to ask whether a 19th century top down colonial
>>> bureaucracy designed by an Italian communist is an appropriate way to
>>> run a continent.
>>
>> A top down colonial bureaucracy is exactly how the UK is run, even
>> though we don't really have colonies any more.
>
> No, it isnt. You are more ignorant about UK politics than the EUs.

Same public school boys, from public schools created to provide the
Empire with its administration staff.

>>> Time will tell.
>>
>> But, either way, you'll still be lying your arse off.
>>
> No, you are, but I will excuse that on the grounds that you are simply
> to stupid to realise  it. As is typical for fanatical EU supporters. All
> emotion, no reason, they are right everyone else is wrong,. misled,
> stupid, etc etc.
>
> In reality its you elitists that drank the EU Koolaid, not people who
> spent years considering their options before deciding to leave a corrupt
> mafia style self-legalising protection racket.

Usual bigoted opinions stated as if they were fact. Read the links
above to understand how EU democracy actually operates and stop lying.

--
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 22:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 19/12/2021 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> The salient point is that the MEPs have no power whatsoever to change
>>> anything. They are neither the originators nor the passers of policy.
>>> They are in effect an 'upper house' a senate, a house of lords, who
>>> can at best stop legislation if they can be bothered to read it or
>>> attend parliament. Most do not. It is a purely ceremonial position.
>>> In the EU, the power is with the commissioners and the various
>>> Presidents none of who undergo popular election. Like  every other
>>> communist state a Party of bureacrats controls everything,  the
>>> elections are just for show, and nothing ever changes in response to
>>> popular demand.
>>> Lobbyists from multinational corporations dictate policy.
>>> The people are there to buy their product and shut up.
>>
>> When are you going to stop lying about the EU???!!!
>>
> When are you?

I posted links that explain how EU democracy actually works, that is not
lying, whereas you are always spouting lies about the EU.

>> This is how the EU actually works, either read and understand it, or
>> don't bother and stop speaking out of your arse about things that you
>> can't be arsed to understand:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
>
> Those  exactly confirms what I have said, the European parliament is an
> 'upper' house only - it does not debate policy, merely rubber stamps it.
>
> The council has no power to initaiate or execute policy. it is just
> another taklkingshop
>
> Only the unelected commissioners initiate policy, and they do so
> according to whatever takes their fancy, or whoever lines their bank
> accounts

ALL FALSE! READ THE LINKS AND STOP LYING!

>> In fact when are going to stop lying, full stop???!!!
>
> I am not lying. You are.

READ THE LINKS AND STOP LYING!

>> Like most countries, Britain does most of its trade with its nearest
>> geographical neighbours,
>
> No, it doesn't.

Trade with EU is about 50% of our total trade, both for imports and
exports, the next biggest trading partner is the US, but it is less than
a third of that.

[snip more lies]

>  and as our nearest geographical neighbours are
>> in the EU, it never made any sense at all for us to leave,
>
> total bollocks. trade is but one tiny part of it and trade is global.
> for anyone who isn't a head in the sand dyed in the wool swivel eyed
> begammoned little Europeaner.

It's simple logic, all we've accomplished by leaving is making 50% of
our trade more expensive.

> The world is bigger than Brussels.

The world is far bigger than the limited mindset of right-wing bigotry.

>>  the only
>> reason we did so being the prevalence of bigoted and shameless liars
>> like you.  If you don't like what is happening to the country now,
>> blame yourself, because you've lied about the EU for decades, voted to
>> leave it, and thereby voted to make this country poorer, so you have
>> directly contributed to the shit we're in, so stop moaning and shut
>> the fuck up.
>
> I see you are indeed a head in the sand dyed in the wool swivel eyed
> begammoned little Europeaner. And in total denial.

I'm just stating the facts as they have always been and still are.
Leaving has accomplished nothing except making 50% of our trade more
expensive, just to please piss-head little Englanders.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 14:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2021 10:08, Pancho wrote:
>>
>> On 21/12/2021 09:20, TimS wrote:
>>>
>>> We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
>>> opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.

Bollocks, read the links given up thread about how the EU really works
and stop lying out of your arse.

>> I'll vote for that!
>
> You may. It will have no effect whatsoever.!
>
> Hitler also came to power democratically, but he didn't leave power that
> way.

Whereas EU functions democratically.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 14:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2021 09:20, TimS wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2021 at 22:30:31 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> See the links given in my reply to the The Unnatural Pillock for how the
>>> EU system of government really works.
>>
>> We already know how it really works: an unelected dictatorship with no
>> opposition and with the public having no opportunity to affect that.
>>
> And the irony is, that the links he supplied totally confirm that!

No they don't read them properly and stop lying about the EU.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 09:19, TimS wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2021 at 22:28:33 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2021 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/12/2021 15:50, alister wrote:
>>>>>> FPTP needs to be replaced
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Yes it does ...
>>
>>> It always - nearly always gives a clear working majority to a single party.
>>> People who say it isn't 'fair' have a childish view of democracy. It
>>> isn't there to 'represent the people' it is there to be able to sack the
>>> executive without a (civil) war.
>>
>> In other words, it nearly always leads to an elected dictatorship for
>> four years.
>
> After which there's a chance to remove it, which is the point.

Only after the damage is done, which is too late, which is the point.

> I saw an example of how coalitions can be bad during my (brief) stint as a
> parish councillor. Before 1997, Cambridgeshire County Council was run by a
> Lib-Lab coalition. During that time, Social Services was a mess and there were
> many instances of child neglect being poorly handled with some instances of
> death resulting. I asked the local Lib-Dem County Councillor why this was. He
> thought for a minute and then said that it was most likely due to the lack of
> clear political control of Social Services. Each of the two parties had its
> own appointee there, but no one was in overall charge.

The real problem being that British politicians don't know how to put
personal politics and ambition aside to compromise and work for the
common good.

> With an elected dictatorship, you know where the buck stops. I detested the
> Blair Labour Govt, but at least you knew who was in charge and it's up to the
> Opposition to point out it's failings.

And we got embroiled in a foreign war.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 15:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Suddenly everyone is talking nuclear, instead of renewables.

No they aren't. Nuclear is by far the most expensive generating option,
about double the cost of the next most expensive option, offshore wind.
Additionally, we in the UK have zilch fissile resources, and for at
least a decade now the nuclear industry's own organisation, the World
Nuclear Association, have been predicting demand to outstrip supply.
This has all been explained to you countless times before, but still you
continue to lie about it.

> Consider the potential imposition of veganism across say the EU, for
> alleged reasons of health and climate change.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> I voted to leave the EU primarily for one reason unique to me.
>
> I wanted to stop this insane expensive gouging of the consumer to
> produce energy from unreliable intermittent sources. I talked to my MP,
> he said it is government policy, I talked to ministers, they said it was
> an EU directive, I talked to my MEP, and he laughed and said 'we can't
> stop it, we are only MEPS, we have no power to do anything,  but the pay
> is good!'  And I asked 'where does the  policy come from' And they said
> 'Siemens lobbied the commissioners along with Vattenfall, they are
> making a fortune out of it, that's why the directive is not about carbon
> dioxide, reduction at all, it is simply promoting a technology that is
> very quick to make a fast profit on, and the Greens like, that means we
> still burn just as much oil and gas, so the oil companies are sanguine
> too.'

Because you are a nuclear nerd who has worked his career in that
industry and cannot conceive of the the demands of changing times.
Nuclear is too expensive and we haven't got the fissile material. We
have to give what Nature has given us, which is fossil fuels, some
hydro, some wind, so we must burn the fossil fuels and capture the
carbon, nothing else makes sense for us.

> That was when I realised that the only democratic path left to a
> concerned UK citizens was to work tirelessly to leave the EU. People
> make mistakes, and if you can't sack them when they keep on making them
> why would they bother not to?

You chose to believe an obviously absurd lie; it's never been the EU
that has driven UK zero carbon policy, we have always been ahead of them
with our policies on this, and again there's the hypocrisy about France,
whom you praise for adopting nuclear, but they are part of the EU, so
you blame them for being that. You're just a muddled old bugger that
has lost the ability to think rationally about issues because you can't
put your bloat-size bigotries aside.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-12-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> Ultimately the sovereign rights of nations need to become as
> obsolete as the rights of feudal lords, which they are the remnant
> of. The world is too small for nations, they do stupid things like
> fighting wars and squabbling over resources.

After all, war is mankind's #1 source of entertainment.

> Look at the way the United States is constantly in need of an
> enemy, whenever one goes away they have to find a new one.

In one of David Lagercrantz's follow-ons to Stieg Larsson's
"Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" series, one of the characters
describes the United States as "a country that's never
missed a war."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 21 Dec 2021 15:17:28 GMT, TimS wrote:

> Are you positing this to be a bad thing? Perhaps you're unaware that the
> Barbary Coast of North Africa (present-day Tunisia/Morocco) was a hotbed
> of piracy back then. These pirates raided southern France, Malta, even
> as far as England and Ireland, and those they captured were taken back
> and sold into slavery. This is not even to mention the arabs of the
> middle-east, who raided down much of the east coast of Africa, again
> with a view to capturing the inhabitants to be sold as slaves.
>
I'm very well, aware of that, thanks, because I paid attention while
reading Abulafia's book.

I was just using that example to point out that America's tendency to
meddle in other people's back yards has a very long history indeed.

> Of course it's not PC to mention this, since we all know that slavery is
> all the fault of whitey.
>
Indeed, but slavery seems to have been an integral part of Mediterranean
cultures since well before the Sacking of Troy and other famous exploits
of the Ancient Greeks. Its just that more recently whitey dominated the
slave trade. The timing of that dominance has a lot to do with the
development of bigger, better and faster ships along with firearms and
cannon and that in turn was aided and abetted by the Atlantic trade
triangle:

- New Englanders sold Salt Cod to feed Caribbean slaves and got molasses
in return, from which they made rum, sold back to the Caribbean and to
Britain.

- Britain sold manufactured stuff to New England and bought timber and
rum.

- Britain also sold guns and cloth, etc to the Caribbean and bought rum
and sugar

It you want to know more about that largely neglected driver for slavery,
get hold of Mark Churlansky's book "Cod".

But all this conveniently ignores the role of those Africans and Arabs
who provided the slaves who ended up in the Caribbean and 'The Deep
South' of America.

There seems to be remarkably little difference between the mental
capacity and attitudes of the ruling classes to their subjects,
regardless of whether those were called serfs, slaves, millhands,
labourers or zero-hour contractors and whether the rulers were called
Alexander The Great, Julius Cesar, King Henry VIII, Beneto Mussolini,
Comrade Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Robert Mugabe, Donald Trump or
Alexander Lukashenko
..

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:49:28 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> The real problem being that British politicians don't know how to put
> personal politics and ambition aside to compromise and work for the
> common good.
>
How can they, when all to many got elected by:

- stick to learning English an 'the humanities' at school with special
attention given to avoiding maths, science and critical thinking

- Study Politics at University, and getting elected on the Student Union

- After graduation, join the party of choice as a researcher

- get run as a no-hope candidate so the party has a candidate, etc

- eventually get given a winnable seat

As a consequence, The Lords is, IMO, the now most useful House we have in
Westminster, simply because, now the hereditary peers have largely gone,
most of its members have done something non-political well enough to get
made a peer. In consequence there are very few professions or areas of
useful knowledge which aren't represented in that House.

>> With an elected dictatorship, you know where the buck stops. I detested
>> the Blair Labour Govt, but at least you knew who was in charge and it's
>> up to the Opposition to point out it's failings.
>
> And we got embroiled in a foreign war.
>
Of course, because so much of that Cabinet got elected by the process I
described above: what else would yo expect from an MP who had done
nothing outside politics?

I'd suggest that the biggest reform that any Parliamentary Democracy
could make would be to introduce a rule that doesn't allow anybody to
stand for election unless they've first done a non-political job for at
least 10-15 years.

Imposing a limit of, say, 25 years as an elected representative would
also be a good idea.

On 21 Dec 2021 at 18:49:28 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/12/2021 09:19, TimS wrote:
>> With an elected dictatorship, you know where the buck stops. I detested the
>> Blair Labour Govt, but at least you knew who was in charge and it's up to the
>> Opposition to point out it's failings.
>
> And we got embroiled in a foreign war.

Ah, a bit like the EU then, that tried and failed in the Balkans. NATO had to
come and save them.

--
Tim