caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
Farage gives them both barrels
- Thread starter Derrick Hughes
- Start date
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
That sounds eminently sensible. All we and other states in the EU would need to do would be to notify the Commission that they intended to invoke it, which we in the UK would obviously do, because it was drawn up at our initiative.
Where are the loopholes? I don't see any obvious ones. No access to benefits for a year and then a tapering eligibility as long as they were paying into the UK system.
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
So you sweep everything under the carpet because it suites your purpose.
Everyone needs a slice of the cake or at least some portion of the cake to feel a valued person... however the native black population was oppressed. I don't know if they had an outlet into politics or even the vote... but along came Idi Amin...
So tell me, who in todays politics is actually doing more to give voice to those with no voice ?
Labour ?
Conservative ?
or UKIP ?
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Your point being? Of course you do know that he also eliminated hundreds of thousands of his own people as well?
I cannot see what possible point you are making apart from propagating further race hate and in this instance excusing Idi Amin.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the UK should have stopped them coming here and condemn them to certain death in Uganda? Nothing would surprise me.
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
They wouldn't be here
wanton dwarf
Member
I think you realise you've lost the argument convincingly.
You are more than willing to castigate people as "deranged and dangerous".
But...
Politics is there for a reason, it allows people to vent frustrations into politics and get tangible results.
This is where UKIP gains.
If Labour and Conservative policies were not extreme UKIP wouldn't exist.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
I am not going to debate that with a self confessed racist who has demonstrated his position and ability to bend the truth starkly and horribly here on this forum in this very topic. Again your logic and comprehension lets you down badly.
wanton dwarf
Member
You're extreme.
The Europeans and Asian in Uganda should have ensured the population as a whole was well catered for. Then Idi Amin would not have been able to use his "economic war" to gain power... because economic disparity would not have existed.
Yes he was a racist... but the Europeans and Asians were Elitists.
I dont condone either side, but I do see some parrallels today.
A large disaffected population and hardcore Elitists.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
He didn't gain power in that way of course. Once again you are way out with the fairies. He was an officer in the UK led army while it was our colony and was made head of the army at independence. He then staged a military coup. There was no 'economic war' on his part tat brought him to power although, like Hitler in part, he did use that reason for persecuting not only minorities but his own people. He was deranged and became more so as his regime progressed. In the end his neighbours had to invade and oust him to stop the genocide.
My goodness, you are hell bent on justifying the unjustifiable.
I and others note that you have studiously avoided the question of whether we should have accepted the refugees into the UK.
wanton dwarf
Member
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
No sh1t Sherlock!
I presume he didn't slaughter half a million of his own people on his own either.
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
I and others note that you have studiously avoided the question of whether we should have accepted the refugees into the UK.
I am fairly confident that the vast majority of the UK population are decent people and not blatant racists like you have demonstrated yourself to be. If you think that all those Brexit voters are like you, think again.
wanton dwarf
Member
You are just a random cannon looking for a target to spray racism at.
You don't have any arguments to back up your accusations other than quoting history like a weapon.
Immigration is just one issue that created Brexit whether you like it or not.
I'm not going to jump to attention because an intolerant Liberal extremist spouts failed dogma.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Your posts speak volumes and convince nobody who reads them and you are deluded if you think anyone is that gullible. Goodbye.
Those "concessions" were smoke and mirrors, they could, and would have been thrown out by the EU as soon as an in vote would have been announced, Cameron was asked, at least three times if they could be vetoed, by the other leaders, and the best he could come up with was" They said they would not!" Thats very different from "They cannot" The important bit of the sentence is missing, here is what they really meant, We wont veto these arrangements, until its in our interests to do so! Which would have been straight after a "remain" vote!
Last edited:
Billhook
Member
Perhaps you could help me Sebastian.
My Danish wife has just applied for dual nationality since Denmark suddenly allowed this to happen earlier this year.
She was given a huge tome on the English language and English grammar. By the way she speaks perfect English.
She was reading it quietly the other day and she asked me
"Darling, can you help me with this section on English Grammar?"
Confident with my superior education "Of course dear, ask me anything"
" What is the difference between past perfect and pluperfect tenses and present perfect and future perfect tenses and can you give me an example of each?"
Cough, splutter mutter mumble something about something I learned in my Latin lessons but not very convincing. "Ask me another"
"When is a noun in the nominative case absolute?"
Over to you Sebastian!
Billhook
Member
This is another angle
The Surprise at Brexit and the Social Crisis Behind It
By George Freidman
In looking at Friday’s market decline, it is clear that the investment community was surprised at the outcome of the referendum in the U.K. What is most surprising is that they were surprised. There were two competing views of the EU. One view regarded the European Union as essential to British economic well-being. The other saw the European Union as a failing institution, and saw Britain being pulled down if it remained.
The European Union has been caught in long-term stagnation. Eight years after the financial crisis it is still unable to break out of it. In addition, a large swath of Europe, especially in the south, is in depression with extremely high unemployment numbers. An argument could be made that these problems will be solved in the long run and that Britain should be part of the solution for its own sake. The counterargument is that if the problems had been soluble they would have been solved years ago.
For a financial community, there is a built-in desire for predictability. It can make money in good or bad markets and economies. It has trouble making money in uncertainty. Therefore, the financial community was inherently biased toward Britain remaining in the EU because it gave them predictability. There was a subconscious assumption that everyone had the same bias toward maintaining the status quo. This was not just the view of the global financial community. It was one shared with other elites – political, journalistic, academic and the rest.
Someone I know, who has many friends in Britain, told me that she didn’t know anyone who favored a British exit. That was true. As the graduate of an elite college she is in touch with similar people around the world. This enclosure has profound social indications to consider, but in this case it created a psychological barrier to anticipating what was coming. When everyone you know thinks an idea is rubbish, it is hard to imagine that there is a majority out there that you haven’t met that doesn’t share your views.
There was also a sense of contempt for the opponents. The leaders, like UKIP leader Nigel Farage, were odd from the elite point of view. Their rhetoric was unseemly. And their followers by and large did not come from the places in London where the elite did. Their views were not the liberal, transnational views of the supporters of the EU. They led much narrower, harder lives and did not know the world as the pro-EU people did. So they were discounted. There was an expectation that the elite, who had governed Britain for so long, were dealing with an annoyance, rather than a peaceful rising against them. Thus, in spite of the polls indicating the election would be extremely close, the “remain” supporters could not believe they would lose.
The reporters of leading British media were talking to their European and American counterparts. The politicians were doing the same. And the financial community is on the phone daily with colleagues around the world. The challenge that was posed in the U.K. referendum is present in many countries around the world, albeit in different forms. What has become universal is the dismissive attitudes of the elite to their challengers. It is difficult for the elite to take seriously that the less educated, the less sophisticated and the less successful would take control of the situation. The French Bourbons and the Russian Romanovs had similar contempt for the crowds in the streets. They dismissed their lack of understanding and inability to act – right to the moment they burst into the palaces.
The analogy should not be overdone but also should not be dismissed. The distance between what I will call the technocratic elite and the increasingly displaced lower-middle and even middle class is becoming one of the major characteristics of our time. This elite did not expect “leave” to win because it was clear to them that the EU would work itself out. They didn’t know anyone who disagreed with them – a measure of how far out of touch they had become with the real world. And above all, they were dismissive of the kind of people who led their opponents.
Not understanding their own isolation and insularity; not grasping the different world view of “leave” supporters or that they couldn’t care less if the financial institutions of the City moved to Frankfurt; not grasping the contempt in which they were held by so many, the elite believed that “leave” could not win. Hence, they were surprised in spite of the fact that others, including myself in my book “Flashpoints: The Coming Crisis in Europe,” had noted all of these trends.
In the end, the financial decline on Friday resulted from the lack of imagination of the elite. And it is that lack of imagination that led them to believe that the current situation could continue. That lack of imagination, the fact that the elite had no idea of what was happening beyond their circle of acquaintances, is a far greater crisis in the West than whether Britain is in the EU or even if the EU survives. We are living in a social divide so deep that serious people of good will and a certain class have never met anyone who wants to leave the EU or who supports blocking Muslim immigration or perhaps even who will vote for Donald Trump.
A democratic society cannot survive this divide. It occurred in the United States in the Great Depression, but was smashed by World War II when the young soldiers of all classes discovered that their lives depended on each other and social class meant nothing when the artillery opened up. The moderation of the post-war period had much to do with this experience.
Of course, World War II was unique and hardly the solution to a social problem. Nevertheless, something dramatic needs to happen. It will, as the situation becomes increasingly untenable. In the end, the palace doors may be kicked in. Hopefully, it will be done more politely and without the viciousness of the falls of the Bourbons and Romanovs.
No one had the right to believe that this couldn’t happen. No one should believe that it will be confined to Britain. No one should believe that it won’t happen again. The days when the elite could assert that the EU is going to be just fine in the face of evidence to the contrary are over.
******
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
The Surprise at Brexit and the Social Crisis Behind It
By George Freidman
In looking at Friday’s market decline, it is clear that the investment community was surprised at the outcome of the referendum in the U.K. What is most surprising is that they were surprised. There were two competing views of the EU. One view regarded the European Union as essential to British economic well-being. The other saw the European Union as a failing institution, and saw Britain being pulled down if it remained.
The European Union has been caught in long-term stagnation. Eight years after the financial crisis it is still unable to break out of it. In addition, a large swath of Europe, especially in the south, is in depression with extremely high unemployment numbers. An argument could be made that these problems will be solved in the long run and that Britain should be part of the solution for its own sake. The counterargument is that if the problems had been soluble they would have been solved years ago.
For a financial community, there is a built-in desire for predictability. It can make money in good or bad markets and economies. It has trouble making money in uncertainty. Therefore, the financial community was inherently biased toward Britain remaining in the EU because it gave them predictability. There was a subconscious assumption that everyone had the same bias toward maintaining the status quo. This was not just the view of the global financial community. It was one shared with other elites – political, journalistic, academic and the rest.
Someone I know, who has many friends in Britain, told me that she didn’t know anyone who favored a British exit. That was true. As the graduate of an elite college she is in touch with similar people around the world. This enclosure has profound social indications to consider, but in this case it created a psychological barrier to anticipating what was coming. When everyone you know thinks an idea is rubbish, it is hard to imagine that there is a majority out there that you haven’t met that doesn’t share your views.
There was also a sense of contempt for the opponents. The leaders, like UKIP leader Nigel Farage, were odd from the elite point of view. Their rhetoric was unseemly. And their followers by and large did not come from the places in London where the elite did. Their views were not the liberal, transnational views of the supporters of the EU. They led much narrower, harder lives and did not know the world as the pro-EU people did. So they were discounted. There was an expectation that the elite, who had governed Britain for so long, were dealing with an annoyance, rather than a peaceful rising against them. Thus, in spite of the polls indicating the election would be extremely close, the “remain” supporters could not believe they would lose.
The reporters of leading British media were talking to their European and American counterparts. The politicians were doing the same. And the financial community is on the phone daily with colleagues around the world. The challenge that was posed in the U.K. referendum is present in many countries around the world, albeit in different forms. What has become universal is the dismissive attitudes of the elite to their challengers. It is difficult for the elite to take seriously that the less educated, the less sophisticated and the less successful would take control of the situation. The French Bourbons and the Russian Romanovs had similar contempt for the crowds in the streets. They dismissed their lack of understanding and inability to act – right to the moment they burst into the palaces.
The analogy should not be overdone but also should not be dismissed. The distance between what I will call the technocratic elite and the increasingly displaced lower-middle and even middle class is becoming one of the major characteristics of our time. This elite did not expect “leave” to win because it was clear to them that the EU would work itself out. They didn’t know anyone who disagreed with them – a measure of how far out of touch they had become with the real world. And above all, they were dismissive of the kind of people who led their opponents.
Not understanding their own isolation and insularity; not grasping the different world view of “leave” supporters or that they couldn’t care less if the financial institutions of the City moved to Frankfurt; not grasping the contempt in which they were held by so many, the elite believed that “leave” could not win. Hence, they were surprised in spite of the fact that others, including myself in my book “Flashpoints: The Coming Crisis in Europe,” had noted all of these trends.
In the end, the financial decline on Friday resulted from the lack of imagination of the elite. And it is that lack of imagination that led them to believe that the current situation could continue. That lack of imagination, the fact that the elite had no idea of what was happening beyond their circle of acquaintances, is a far greater crisis in the West than whether Britain is in the EU or even if the EU survives. We are living in a social divide so deep that serious people of good will and a certain class have never met anyone who wants to leave the EU or who supports blocking Muslim immigration or perhaps even who will vote for Donald Trump.
A democratic society cannot survive this divide. It occurred in the United States in the Great Depression, but was smashed by World War II when the young soldiers of all classes discovered that their lives depended on each other and social class meant nothing when the artillery opened up. The moderation of the post-war period had much to do with this experience.
Of course, World War II was unique and hardly the solution to a social problem. Nevertheless, something dramatic needs to happen. It will, as the situation becomes increasingly untenable. In the end, the palace doors may be kicked in. Hopefully, it will be done more politely and without the viciousness of the falls of the Bourbons and Romanovs.
No one had the right to believe that this couldn’t happen. No one should believe that it will be confined to Britain. No one should believe that it won’t happen again. The days when the elite could assert that the EU is going to be just fine in the face of evidence to the contrary are over.
******
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
wasted years
Member
- Location
- Cumbrian born and bread
What is an 'intolerant Liberal extremist'?
Surely a contradiction?
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land