Nigel Farage - One of the worst Britains

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Am I the only one who was embarrassed by UKIP's Nigel Farage's outburst in the European parliament?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8537664.stm

Mr Farage drew jeers on Wednesday when he told the chamber Mr Van Rompuy had "the charisma of a damp rag" and the appearance of a "low-grade bank clerk".

The attack came as Mr Van Rompuy, a former Belgian prime minister, made his maiden appearance in parliament in Brussels.

WHAT AN EFFING DYLAN!!!

Having Eurosceptics in the EU parliament doesn't work. Outbursts such as this just makes other EU nations dislike the UK. As a result we have less voice on EU issues. Surely it would be better to have MEP's who would like to concentrate on making the EU work?

He's on Question Time tonight, along with Janet Street-Porter. *Blood-pressure rising*

[christophulus]

He's on Question Time tonight, along with Janet Street-Porter. *Blood-pressure rising*

Not just me watching it then? Not a big fan of Peter Hain either, so 50% of the panel are getting on my nerves.

Farage is a broken record, and he's making the UK look intolerant and isolated. He's essentially our ambassador to the rest of Europe.

I'd never heard of van Rompuy before and not much about him since, but it's not like the media really covers the European Parliament unless they're specifying the curvature of a banana or some other ridiculous rule. Probably a better choice than Blair though.

[wedge]

Hate to say but Mr Farage was right.

He has guts, I give him that.

Who does Rumpy Pumpy think he is or in fact any top official running the EU who was unelected and unsupported by the people but from backroom deals?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hate to say but Mr Farage was right.

He has guts, I give him that.

Who does Rumpy Pumpy think he is or in fact any top official running the EU who was unelected and unsupported by the people but from backroom deals?

If he wants to make a point he isn't going to get any respect with that sort of outburst. Everything he has said has been disregarded by everyone else as 'looney talk'. As a result his point, if he has one, has been ignored and our voice in Europe is ignored.

[Dave B]

UKIP never had any credibility in the first place, they're basically a polite middle-class version of the BNP. But with this lunatic in charge they've become a laughing stock.

[tin-top fan]

UKIP never had any credibility in the first place, they're basically a polite middle-class version of the BNP. But with this lunatic in charge they've become a laughing stock.

Ukip might not have ever had 'any credibility' in your eyes, but they obviously do for a large number of uk resisdents. Thats why they were the 2nd biggest party in the last elections- ahead of both the lib dems and labour.

[Daniel]

Ukip might not have ever had 'any credibility' in your eyes, but they obviously do for a large number of uk resisdents. Thats why they were the 2nd biggest party in the last elections- ahead of both the lib dems and labour.
That's because a large number of British residents are idiots. There I said it.....

[Dave B]

Ukip might not have ever had 'any credibility' in your eyes, but they obviously do for a large number of uk resisdents. Thats why they were the 2nd biggest party in the last elections- ahead of both the lib dems and labour.

The last round of elections took place in the midst of the expenses scandal when the majority of the population were - somewhat justifiably - disillusioned with all the mainstream parties. UKIP are a fringe party of xenophobic lunatics who do not represent the average Briton.

They bitch and moan about the EU but are only too happy to claim expenses from it (Farrage himself has benefited to the tune of around €2 million), they are dogged by accusations of and convictions for fraud, they're so wacky that even wacko-in-chief Robert Kilroy-Silk wanted out.

They're a joke, or at least they would be if fraud and xenophobia were anything to laugh about.

[Daniel]

The last round of elections took place in the midst of the expenses scandal when the majority of the population were - somewhat justifiably - disillusioned with all the mainstream parties. UKIP are a fringe party of xenophobic lunatics who do not represent the average Briton.

They bitch and moan about the EU but are only too happy to claim expenses from it (Farrage himself has benefited to the tune of around €2 million), they are dogged by accusations of and convictions for fraud, they're so wacky that even wacko-in-chief Robert Kilroy-Silk wanted out.

They're a joke, or at least they would be if fraud and xenophobia were anything to laugh about.
You're very much correct. Every once in a while these extremists grab a big chunk of the vote only to be shown up as the idiots they are. Have a look at One Nation in Australia. They made some noise, got some votes and then did SFA and Herr Pauline is now coming to Britain.

[BeansBeansBeans]

That's because a large number of British residents are idiots. There I said it.....

I'd not say they're idiots, but a large number are naive and politically ignorant. They are therefore easily swayed by any bunch of cretins claiming to 'support the British people'.

[Daniel]

I'd not say they're idiots, but a large number are naive and politically ignorant. They are therefore easily swayed by any bunch of cretins claiming to 'support the British people'.
You're too diplomatic BBB :) What is someone other than an idiot if they get suckered in by these fools?

[BeansBeansBeans]

You're too diplomatic BBB :) What is someone other than an idiot if they get suckered in by these fools?

I think there is a difference between stupid and misinformed. I don't think BNP voters are necessarily all bad. I know a guy who is nice enough but says things like "I'm sick of being a minority in my own country". Now, someone has told him that he, as a white male, is a minority in the UK and he's just taken it as gospel, which...actually, the more I type the more right you become. He's just an idiot isn't he?

[Daniel]

I think there is a difference between stupid and misinformed. I don't think BNP voters are necessarily all bad. I know a guy who is nice enough but says things like "I'm sick of being a minority in my own country". Now, someone has told him that he, as a white male, is a minority in the UK and he's just taken it as gospel, which...actually, the more I type the more right you become. He's just an idiot isn't he?
LOL :D IMHO the same laws that apply to false advertising should apply to politics. If it can't be reasonably proven that these so called ethic Brits are a minority in their own country then the BNP should be prohibited from saying or even suggesting this.

[wedge]

That's because a large number of British residents are idiots. There I said it.....

Or perhaps Brits don't want laws made in Brussels

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Or perhaps Brits don't want laws made in Brussels

What have you got against Brussels?

So if the EU Parliament was based in London you wouldn't mind?

[Hondo]

I didn't think it was all that bad. If I were British, I wouldn't be embarrassed about the man speaking his mind. The UK has pretty much kept the EU at arms length anyway. You never adopted the Euro. The little fella from Belgium isn't the quiet assassin of Europe though, European Socialism is. You cannot continue to fund social spending like you have been. Look at Greece. The whole sorry thing is coming apart and there will be violence.

[Mark]

they're so wacky that even wacko-in-chief Robert Kilroy-Silk wanted out.


Or rather he made a bit for the leadership and subsequently lost the resulting power struggle and was forced out.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Or rather he made a bit for the leadership and subsequently lost the resulting power struggle and was forced out.

I hear he left because they couldn't decide whether to share, or to shaft.

[tin-top fan]

Maybe some people are getting fed up of the ridiculous number of layers of government in this country.

Looking at my situation, it goes:

- Guildford town Council
- Surrey County Council

Have the 'south east england partnership board' in here.

- UK Parliament
- European Parliament.

Can someone tell us on here what relevance a parliament has, which can't be fulfilled by the uk parliament?

don't even get me started on the fact that the Scottish mp's voting on issues that only effect England...

[wedge]

What have you got against Brussels?

So if the EU Parliament was based in London you wouldn't mind?

Because I don't want unelected officials like Rompey Pumpy telling me which bananas to eat. If it resembled a sex toy I would have no problems eating that bannana!

[wedge]

Can someone tell us on here what relevance a parliament has, which can't be fulfilled by the uk parliament?

Prisoners and their so called human rights

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because I don't want unelected officials like Rompey Pumpy telling me which bananas to eat. If it resembled a sex toy I would have no problems eating that bannana!

We have someone here who believes the Euromyths. :rolleyes:

The bananas one WAS a myth (at least, the original one about straight bananas being banned). Regulation (EC) 2257/94 – a great read, by the way – stated that they must be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers”, but failed to specify what this meant, and said nothing about straightness. It also didn’t actually ban anything.

And if the only reason you can come up with for not wanting the EU is because of bananas then you have some serious issues!

[Lousada]

Because I don't want unelected officials like Rompey Pumpy telling me which bananas to eat. If it resembled a sex toy I would have no problems eating that bannana!

Van Rompuy was elected by the heads of state of all the EU members. The heads of state were themselves elected by the population of their country.

[wedge]

Van Rompuy was elected by the heads of state of all the EU members. The heads of state were themselves elected by the population of their country.

That itself does not make it democratic just as coalition government is not democratic.

[Daniel]

That itself does not make it democratic just as coalition government is not democratic.
You should be banned for being a clot.

[Daniel]

Maybe some people are getting fed up of the ridiculous number of layers of government in this country.

Looking at my situation, it goes:

- Guildford town Council
- Surrey County Council

Have the 'south east england partnership board' in here.

- UK Parliament
- European Parliament.

Can someone tell us on here what relevance a parliament has, which can't be fulfilled by the uk parliament?

don't even get me started on the fact that the Scottish mp's voting on issues that only effect England...
That's a British problem though, in Australia you don't have all those layers and it works a ****load better. Have counties take care of rubbish and put local councils in charge of the flower displays in the middle of rounabouts and a lot of the problems will be solved.

[wedge]

You should be banned for being a clot.

Look who's talking. You've just made a personal attack for no valid reason.

[Daniel]

Look who's talking. You've just made a personal attack for no valid reason.
Huh? You think that someone who was elected by the democratically elected people elected to represent us is not there legitimately? Next you'll say I DIDN'T VOTE FOR GORDON!!!!! HE'S NOT A LEGITIMATE PM!!!!!

[wedge]

Huh? You think that someone who was elected by the democratically elected people elected to represent us is not there legitimately? Next you'll say I DIDN'T VOTE FOR GORDON!!!!! HE'S NOT A LEGITIMATE PM!!!!!

That's exactly what the likes of THe Daily Telegraph constantly whine about. Their commentary and editiorial likes to regularly remind its Tory loving readership (I personally read it and along with The Guardian for balanced opinion and form my own) that Major had the balls to call a snap election to legitimise his Tory leadership.

Personally I voted Labour in the penultimate election knowing full well of the alleged 'deal' and wanted a Labour government regardless who led it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Huh? You think that someone who was elected by the democratically elected people elected to represent us is not there legitimately? Next you'll say I DIDN'T VOTE FOR GORDON!!!!! HE'S NOT A LEGITIMATE PM!!!!!

I wonder how different politics would be if people voted based on their opinion of the local candidates rather than voting based on the party leader.

[wedge]

I wonder how different politics would be if people voted based on their opinion of the local candidates rather than voting based on the party leader.

That is a tricky dilemma I'm currently facing. My current Tory MP has done a good job for local issues - an active community member no less and yet the Labour candidate is a nobody from London.

[christophulus]

We have someone here who believes the Euromyths. :rolleyes:

That's the problem though, it's never clear what the EU really does because it's not often reported on in the news unless it's about something negative.

UKIP is a hypocritical, one-policy party, complaining about the EU but taking all the benefits of being an MEP, and is just playing on the general public's ignorance about Europe.

[BDunnell]

That's exactly what the likes of THe Daily Telegraph constantly whine about. Their commentary and editiorial likes to regularly remind its Tory loving readership (I personally read it and along with The Guardian for balanced opinion and form my own) that Major had the balls to call a snap election to legitimise his Tory leadership.

Er... no, he didn't. Major was elected Tory leader and became Prime Minister in late 1990. The general election took place in 1992, five years after the last one, so within the normal cycle. Major then invoked an internal party leadership challenge (the 'put up or shut up' one) in 1995, which he won, and he duly continued as PM until the 1997 election. I dislike the Daily Telegraph, but it would never make such a mistake as that, even though you claim to have read about this in its pages. You ought to get your facts on these things straight.

Likewise, why do you believe in all the nonsense about bananas, and so on? That's not true either. Pay less attention to the lies in certain newspapers and you'll be better informed than you are now.

[V12]

I think there is a difference between stupid and misinformed. I don't think BNP voters are necessarily all bad. I know a guy who is nice enough but says things like "I'm sick of being a minority in my own country". Now, someone has told him that he, as a white male, is a minority in the UK and he's just taken it as gospel, which...actually, the more I type the more right you become. He's just an idiot isn't he?

Whites are not a minority in the UK as a whole, or indeed officially in any cities as a whole (although that might change with the Census due next year), but in certain neighbourhoods of the larger cities (and many small towns in the West Yorks/East Lancs region) they are and that is probably what he meant.

On the whole EU business, yes I'm against it, nothing to with any xenophobia or stuff, I just think the whole idea is flawed. If anything I think it needs to go the other way with more devolution and power to be spread out more on more local scales. Large empires eventually crumble for a reason - and things like the EU are essentially political versions of that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

LOL :D IMHO the same laws that apply to false advertising should apply to politics. If it can't be reasonably proven that these so called ethic Brits are a minority in their own country then the BNP should be prohibited from saying or even suggesting this.

Making a law against a stupid opinion is in a sense, censorship of free speech. Let the idiots go...if your electorate is too dumb to figure out it, maybe it is because they are products of the gov't run educational system....

[Mark in Oshawa]

As for the EU, the politicians in it seem to be the ones every nation is tired of and decides to export to the EU parliament....but again, that is my opinion from afar...

[driveace]

think your opinion there is about right Mark,all the useless ones finish up in the EU in some form or other,good job so far Blair was not elected to it !

[wedge]

I dislike the Daily Telegraph, but it would never make such a mistake as that, even though you claim to have read about this in its pages. You ought to get your facts on these things straight.

Well spotted but The Torygraph will look for any excuse to trump Labour.


Likewise, why do you believe in all the nonsense about bananas, and so on? That's not true either. Pay less attention to the lies in certain newspapers and you'll be better informed than you are now.

So does that make the BBC - often accused of having a liberal agenda are complete idiots as well for spreading lies?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2066730.stm

Doesn't matter if its bananas or potatoes, its the principle. Nobody wants absurd bureaucracy, especially if its created in Brussels.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Whites are not a minority in the UK as a whole, or indeed officially in any cities as a whole (although that might change with the Census due next year), but in certain neighbourhoods of the larger cities (and many small towns in the West Yorks/East Lancs region) they are and that is probably what he meant.

I beg to differ. He lives in a quite cosy area of Warrington where whites are in the vast majority.

[BDunnell]

Making a law against a stupid opinion is in a sense, censorship of free speech. Let the idiots go...if your electorate is too dumb to figure out it, maybe it is because they are products of the gov't run educational system....

Oh, here we go. Funny that I am a product of the state educational system and am able to make up my own mind in a reasonably sensible fashion. But don't let the fact that there are plenty of people like me with this same background deter you from your diatribes against anything that the British state, in its appallingly Communist way, has dared to consider itself better at running than the glorious private sector.

[BDunnell]

Well spotted but The Torygraph will look for any excuse to trump Labour.

'Well spotted'? What I posted was well-known, simple fact. You got it badly wrong. Before you post on these subjects, why not get yourself informed about basic political general knowledge? Anyone in possession of same knows full well the dates involved. And if you can find any reference in the Telegraph to John Major having called a snap election, as per your memory, do share it with us.



So does that make the BBC - often accused of having a liberal agenda are complete idiots as well for spreading lies?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2066730.stm

Where in that story does it state that the EU banned 'bendy' bananas from sale? I think you'll find this was the story as reported by the tabloids, and that a post earlier in the thread disproves it to everyone's satisfaction.



Doesn't matter if its bananas or potatoes, its the principle. Nobody wants absurd bureaucracy, especially if its created in Brussels.

Give me an example of a law passed by the EU — and one genuinely passed, not one you think you've read about in some newspaper — which has adversely affected your life. I cannot think of a single one that's done likewise with regard to mine, and I'm hardly an exceptional individual.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

On the whole EU business, yes I'm against it, nothing to with any xenophobia or stuff, I just think the whole idea is flawed. If anything I think it needs to go the other way with more devolution and power to be spread out more on more local scales. Large empires eventually crumble for a reason - and things like the EU are essentially political versions of that.


I disagree. I personally think globablisation is inevitable and politics on a larger scale is part of this.

I bet in centuries to come we will have a Unified Earth Government :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh, here we go. Funny that I am a product of the state educational system and am able to make up my own mind in a reasonably sensible fashion. But don't let the fact that there are plenty of people like me with this same background deter you from your diatribes against anything that the British state, in its appallingly Communist way, has dared to consider itself better at running than the glorious private sector.

nope..just pointing out the irony of all Ben. I am not saying you guys are commies or socialists or the private sector is superior or any of that. ALL I was doing was pointing out the the "educated" electorate that any democracy has will still elect idiots. It seems in Britian, the worst idiots get sent to the EU Parliament where they will argue over a lot of stuff that really doesn't seem to resonate with those who live and work every day worrying about real issues.

IN short, you were putting words IN my mouth....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I disagree. I personally think globablisation is inevitable and politics on a larger scale is part of this.

I bet in centuries to come we will have a Unified Earth Government :p

The Yanks wont to hear that. Last I looked, they were rather sour on this whole UN thing, and it is about as feckless as it comes.

The EU is a great idea to keep bad politicians busy while the countries who belong get to pretend they are one country for some purposes while keeping themselves separated for others.

[Daniel]

I disagree. I personally think globablisation is inevitable and politics on a larger scale is part of this.

I bet in centuries to come we will have a Unified Earth Government :p
My fellow earthicans......

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tQLx_rd5X-Q/SErFsAywHdI/AAAAAAAAAWc/t4e2HkYYSo8/s400/Futurama+Nixon+Head.jpg

[Hondo]

I disagree. I personally think globablisation is inevitable and politics on a larger scale is part of this.

I bet in centuries to come we will have a Unified Earth Government :p

Not true my still not supporting himself completely son. Globalization of the known world has been tried in centuries past via technology and force of arms and hasn't worked out. One reason is the empire becomes too big and too expensive to administer effectively. The other reason is people's identity, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We are all not the same and don't want to be the same. Religion is the cheapest, most effective way of having large populations voluntarily submit to obedience and control. You're going to need a global religion. Good luck.------OR------You need a common enemy that threatens ALL the world's populations with such dire consequences of destruction and ruin unless all nations agree to submit huge amounts of money and authority to a global commision with a free hand to rule as needed to save the planet. Like, uh...Global Warming or the swine flu pan-demic. There you go. If you want to go global you need one, or preferably more of the big three, The biggest armed forces the world has ever seen, a religion that appeals to and pleases every one, and/or the world's finest con artists to sell the concepts of complete destruction at the hands of man.

I hear all the talk about how globalization is necessary for our survival but I don't buy it. Government likes it because it expands their role and control but we don't "need" a global economy. Based on what I've seen of "global" so far, we seem to be best served by doing business in a civil manner and then staying the hell away from each other.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Not true my still not supporting himself completely son. Globalization of the known world has been tried in centuries past via technology and force of arms and hasn't worked out. One reason is the empire becomes too big and too expensive to administer effectively. The other reason is people's identity, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We are all not the same and don't want to be the same. Religion is the cheapest, most effective way of having large populations voluntarily submit to obedience and control. You're going to need a global religion. Good luck.------OR------You need a common enemy that threatens ALL the world's populations with such dire consequences of destruction and ruin unless all nations agree to submit huge amounts of money and authority to a global commision with a free hand to rule as needed to save the planet. Like, uh...Global Warming or the swine flu pan-demic. There you go. If you want to go global you need one, or preferably more of the big three, The biggest armed forces the world has ever seen, a religion that appeals to and pleases every one, and/or the world's finest con artists to sell the concepts of complete destruction at the hands of man.

I hear all the talk about how globalization is necessary for our survival but I don't buy it. Government likes it because it expands their role and control but we don't "need" a global economy. Based on what I've seen of "global" so far, we seem to be best served by doing business in a civil manner and then staying the hell away from each other.

Your feelings about globalization are completely different to mine. The fact we can have this conversation is globalization, as is my pants being made in Turkey, my bank account being at the HongKong and Shanghai Bank and my lunch coming from KFC.

It's not about one country having a giant empire and ruling the world. It's about the global market.

[BDunnell]

Not true my still not supporting himself completely son. Globalization of the known world has been tried in centuries past via technology and force of arms and hasn't worked out. One reason is the empire becomes too big and too expensive to administer effectively. The other reason is people's identity, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We are all not the same and don't want to be the same. Religion is the cheapest, most effective way of having large populations voluntarily submit to obedience and control. You're going to need a global religion. Good luck.------OR------You need a common enemy that threatens ALL the world's populations with such dire consequences of destruction and ruin unless all nations agree to submit huge amounts of money and authority to a global commision with a free hand to rule as needed to save the planet. Like, uh...Global Warming or the swine flu pan-demic. There you go. If you want to go global you need one, or preferably more of the big three, The biggest armed forces the world has ever seen, a religion that appeals to and pleases every one, and/or the world's finest con artists to sell the concepts of complete destruction at the hands of man.

I hear all the talk about how globalization is necessary for our survival but I don't buy it. Government likes it because it expands their role and control but we don't "need" a global economy. Based on what I've seen of "global" so far, we seem to be best served by doing business in a civil manner and then staying the hell away from each other.

It is a shame that we can't have more than the odd North American voice on here whose views aren't beset with global conspiracy theories. The more I read of your opinions, the more I am convinced that your critical faculties ought to be directed elsewhere, but this goes for a lot of people.

[Hondo]

Your feelings about globalization are completely different to mine. The fact we can have this conversation is globalization, as is my pants being made in Turkey, my bank account being at the HongKong and Shanghai Bank and my lunch coming from KFC.

It's not about one country having a giant empire and ruling the world. It's about the global market.

My apologies. I don't know how your musings about a Unified Earth Government would lead me to think that you didn't mean one government, running the entire world, like an empire.

My point on globaliztion, is that it is not mandatory for survival as many would have you think. If push came to shove, I'm sure Britain could master the art of trouser manufacture. My point being the fact that we buy products in a global market doesn't mean that is the exclusive source of those products.

[Hondo]

It is a shame that we can't have more than the odd North American voice on here whose views aren't beset with global conspiracy theories. The more I read of your opinions, the more I am convinced that your critical faculties ought to be directed elsewhere, but this goes for a lot of people.

Lol, you still haven't gotten over being played for a sucker on the man made Global Warming thing have you BD? By golly, that did turn out to be a conspiracy didn't it? I love ya BD!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My apologies. I don't know how your musings about a Unified Earth Government would lead me to think that you didn't mean one government, running the entire world, like an empire.

My point on globaliztion, is that it is not mandatory for survival as many would have you think. If push came to shove, I'm sure Britain could master the art of trouser manufacture. My point being the fact that we buy products in a global market doesn't mean that is the exclusive source of those products.

It's not about it being mandatory for survival. Globalisation is just a side effect of the free market. It is inevitable.

And

The European Parliament isn't run like an empire. Eventually more 'supranational' organistions, like the EU will develop, and then maybe one day these organisations will work together. Think of it as global economic integration.

H.G.Wells wrote a lot about this.

[Hondo]

It's not about it being mandatory for survival. Globalisation is just a side effect of the free market. It is inevitable.

And

The European Parliament isn't run like an empire. Eventually more 'supranational' organistions, like the EU will develop, and then maybe one day these organisations will work together. Think of it as global economic integration.

H.G.Wells wrote a lot about this.

Last I read (today) the EU is hurting and Greece is becoming a real problem. The EU was formed as a trade protectionism organization to help European nations make better deals with larger trading partners like the USA, Russia, and China. As an example, check out the price of rice in Japan. The USA could bury Japan in rice at a fraction of the cost. The Japanese are able to protect their rice farmers through import and trade regulations. Thats what the EU tries to do. It encourges trade amongst it's partners for survival and erects barriers to trade outside the EU. All governments engage in trade protection.

Globalization isn't inevitable. If you found pants you liked, made in Britain, for less cost than the Turkish made product, you'd buy those instead. Why? Because they please you and the price was right. Personally, I'm glad you enjoy KFC. I love the original receipe stuff myself. I wish we had an honest-to-god fish & chips shop around here. But your world won't come to an end without KFC.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Globalization isn't inevitable. If you found pants you liked, made in Britain, for less cost than the Turkish made product, you'd buy those instead. Why? Because they please you and the price was right. Personally, I'm glad you enjoy KFC. I love the original receipe stuff myself. I wish we had an honest-to-god fish & chips shop around here. But your world won't come to an end without KFC.

The reasons the UK store (where I purchased my pants) took advantage of the lower wages in Turkey is connected to globalisation.

[Hondo]

The reasons the UK store (where I purchased my pants) took advantage of the lower wages in Turkey is connected to globalisation.

That's taking advantage of lower wages for higher profit and market share and not necessarily globalization and you bought them because they were less expensive regardless of where they were made, an option you elected to take. If you, as an individual and others individually, decide to only buy trousers made in Britain, the merchant will provide what his market wants and buy the more expensive trousers from a British mill as long as he can sell them at a profit. But for all everybody's whining about jobs going overseas, they support that very thing by purchasing the cheaper imported goods. At some point Turkey will increase it's standard of living and, like Britain, price itself out of the trouser making business

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That's taking advantage of lower wages for higher profit and market share and not necessarily globalization and you bought them because they were less expensive regardless of where they were made, an option you elected to take. If you, as an individual and others individually, decide to only buy trousers made in Britain, the merchant will provide what his market wants and buy the more expensive trousers from a British mill as long as he can sell them at a profit. But for all everybody's whining about jobs going overseas, they support that very thing by purchasing the cheaper imported goods. At some point Turkey will increase it's standard of living and, like Britain, price itself out of the trouser making business

I fear we have gone off topic :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

I fear we have gone off topic :p

I suppose you are SHOCKED how this happened? When does a Chit Chat thread not eventually go off topic?

[wedge]

Give me an example of a law passed by the EU — and one genuinely passed, not one you think you've read about in some newspaper — which has adversely affected your life. I cannot think of a single one that's done likewise with regard to mine, and I'm hardly an exceptional individual.

Depends how you define 'adversely affected'.

Working in logistics I'm happy to implement work directives and care immensely the safety and welfare of my truck drivers. The paperwork I can probably do without.

Many businesses have to put up with red tape and bureaucracy that is inconvenient and is stressful particularly for smaller businesses.

[Daniel]

Depends how you define 'adversely affected'.

Working in logistics I'm happy to implement work directives and care immensely the safety and welfare of my truck drivers. The paperwork I can probably do without.

Many businesses have to put up with red tape and bureaucracy that is inconvenient and is stressful particularly for smaller businesses.
So no actual examples, just wishy washy generalisations? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

Lol, you still haven't gotten over being played for a sucker on the man made Global Warming thing have you BD? By golly, that did turn out to be a conspiracy didn't it? I love ya BD!

My point precisely. This is exactly the issue that has made me question the critical faculties of some, including your good self. I am comfortable with my own view on the subject.

[Hondo]

My point precisely. This is exactly the issue that has made me question the critical faculties of some, including your good self. I am comfortable with my own view on the subject.

That's fair because I'm comfortable with you being comfortable with your own views. There is nothing wrong with my critical faculties just because my opinions differ. We are products of different cultures and life experiences. Just as y'all may not understand or agree with the American mindset I suffer from the additional burden of also being a Texan and most Americans don't understand us at all. The culture in which I was raised respected the property of others, taking personal responsibility for your actions or lack thereof, a handshake contract, encourged independence and self-reliance, desired a minimum of government and laws, supported charity, and a lack of tolerance for those that could do for themselves, but wouldn't.

You may not agree with my culture and that's ok with me. The people in Massacussets, Chicago, and New York City don't agree with it either. But in Texas, it works and works well.

I don't question your critical faculties about your opinions on Global Warming. To me, the fun of this forum is the exchange of opinions and the basis of the opinions, not necessarily the "facts". People, myself included, paste links to our topics or arguments all the time. Most of us are not scientists and can only look at what is presented and draw our own conclusion. We all know that the data that created the fact and statistics can be tweaked to make an argument for or against. I don't see where my thoughts on man made climate change make me a disturbed individual.
1. Has the earth undergone climate changes before man's influence? Yes.

2. Did the scientific community change or omit data and attempt to excommunicate those that disagreed with Global Warming? Yes.

3. Did the scientific community opposed to the GW theory change or omit data, or suppress those that agreed with GW? No.

4. Who benefits from GW? Government.

5. How? The only thing government loves more than government, is more government. Any time you can sell a new problem, you can sell government programs to deal with that problem. More government means more tax money. Lots more tax money. In this era of New World Orders and Globalization and One World Governments we now have Global Warming, a crisis that allows and encourges the growth of government right down to the city level for EVERY government on the face of the earth. They start coming up with all sorts of taxes and fees. They have no plan or plans to fight this warming. They have no plans to counteract this warming. They really have no plan to stop the warming. They have no plan for levees, dikes, or seawalls. They have no plans to enhance food production in smaller areas. They have no plans to evacuate and relocate massive amounts of the population. What they have, are plans to tax the emissions of literally everything. And, you can still emit all you want, just like before GW, but you have to pay more tax if you do. Even better, those that were allowed more "carbon credits" than they needed could sell them (taxed transaction) to brokers that could resell (taxed transaction) them, at a profit to companies that were emitting more than their fair share. None of this put even the tiniest dent in Global Warming. It gave huge amounts of unquestioned control and revenue to government, immediately and willingly from a bunch of terrified people. It gave people a global enemy that only a global coalition government could fight.

Some people like government. To them it represents safety, security, conformity, and continuity. They find comfort in that and it works for them.

I don't. I have yet to see a governmental agency created to deal with peacetime problem that solved the problem and disbanded itself. I have seen agencies created to solve problems that got larger along with the problem it was created to prevent.

So DB, I still like ya, and if you're ever in town, give me a call and we'll have supper. You might be surprised.

[Hondo]

BD, any reason in particular you fly the German flag?

[wedge]

So no actual examples, just wishy washy generalisations? :laugh:

Me, I'm an underling who's happy with what I do and put up with so I can happily surf the interweb in my *ahem* spare work time.

:D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, I concur with your view on the reality that too many people see the "solution" to GW or most ills of modern society to be more government. I know BD will disagree. He has never once been afraid or leary of government run anything. He is to an extent, a product of his society, and your nation and mine have bred a few people who also think this way.

The simple reality is the backlash towards governments, globalization and all the other "Big" solutions to the world's ills comes from that desire of the common man to have some freedom in his life. We all want protection from great threats, but when you water down "threats" to your person to such arcane things as the threat of your socialized child care program and the "threat" that civil servants might have to make the national average wage rather than the unionized 30% premium they would make over the private sector, then the argument is weak. It really gets weak when a government enacts legisltation to solve a problem to which either there is NO solution, or it just lines the pockets of people connected with the government.

The role of government in society is important, whether it be in the UK, Texas or Argentina. The problem has always been making it be more beneficial than harmful. This why people like Fiero and I bristle when some pol tries to sell us on some new solution. History has shown that some things government can do well, such as national defence, or healthcare (it can be done well, just done efficiently at an affordable cost really is the debate) but in most tasks, it does ok...or sort of...or in many cases poorily.

Also...globalization, the great fear of many is part of our lives. That said, economic globalization is inevitable. We see it because the consumer wants the best product for the best price, and you cannot do that with artificial price and wage controls. Now, that said, we would all be working for a lot less some might point out, but in the end I doubt it. The reality is society's relative wealth and standard of living has esclated throughout the last 20 or so years of more open trade. Yes, jobs have been displaced. I am home right now partially because of this turmoil, but the reality is you cannot mess with the economics of a modern economy without some penality. This meddling by governements has just once again shown one more thing they don't understand....

[Hondo]

The Texas constitution was drafted to give as little power to government as possible while still allowing it to function at proper, by the people's definition, government business. There are still no state income taxes in Texas and on a clear night, when some misguided pilgrim in the legislature speaks of creating one, you can hear the Winchesters ratcheting all over the state.

[BDunnell]

BD, any reason in particular you fly the German flag?

I once lived in Germany, very much like the country, and hope to live there again some time. So?

[BDunnell]

Fiero, I concur with your view on the reality that too many people see the "solution" to GW or most ills of modern society to be more government. I know BD will disagree. He has never once been afraid or leary of government run anything. He is to an extent, a product of his society, and your nation and mine have bred a few people who also think this way.

The simple reality is the backlash towards governments, globalization and all the other "Big" solutions to the world's ills comes from that desire of the common man to have some freedom in his life. We all want protection from great threats, but when you water down "threats" to your person to such arcane things as the threat of your socialized child care program and the "threat" that civil servants might have to make the national average wage rather than the unionized 30% premium they would make over the private sector, then the argument is weak. It really gets weak when a government enacts legisltation to solve a problem to which either there is NO solution, or it just lines the pockets of people connected with the government.

The role of government in society is important, whether it be in the UK, Texas or Argentina. The problem has always been making it be more beneficial than harmful. This why people like Fiero and I bristle when some pol tries to sell us on some new solution. History has shown that some things government can do well, such as national defence, or healthcare (it can be done well, just done efficiently at an affordable cost really is the debate) but in most tasks, it does ok...or sort of...or in many cases poorily.

Also...globalization, the great fear of many is part of our lives. That said, economic globalization is inevitable. We see it because the consumer wants the best product for the best price, and you cannot do that with artificial price and wage controls. Now, that said, we would all be working for a lot less some might point out, but in the end I doubt it. The reality is society's relative wealth and standard of living has esclated throughout the last 20 or so years of more open trade. Yes, jobs have been displaced. I am home right now partially because of this turmoil, but the reality is you cannot mess with the economics of a modern economy without some penality. This meddling by governements has just once again shown one more thing they don't understand....

Merely making a post long doesn't make it learned, you know.

[Hondo]

I once lived in Germany, very much like the country, and hope to live there again some time. So?

Sorry Bd, I wasn't looking for a fight, I was just curious. Good luck with it.

[BDunnell]

Sorry Bd, I wasn't looking for a fight, I was just curious. Good luck with it.

No, I should be the one apologising — there was no need for my response to your reasonable question to be so aggressive. I suppose I was genuinely irritated at another person's post above.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I've just realised that the title should have said Britons, not Britains. :(

[Mark in Oshawa]

Merely making a post long doesn't make it learned, you know.

I have time on my hands, and you could choose not to read it. Unlike Jan, I respect your opinion, even if I don't often agree with it. If I irritate you, put me on ignore now because I am going to state what I feel.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Texas constitution was drafted to give as little power to government as possible while still allowing it to function at proper, by the people's definition, government business. There are still no state income taxes in Texas and on a clear night, when some misguided pilgrim in the legislature speaks of creating one, you can hear the Winchesters ratcheting all over the state.

I wonder if anyone in Massachusetts could even find a Winchester?

[Hondo]

I've just realised that the title should have said Britons, not Britains. :(

That's why we've been keeping it alive for you. It's always better if you realize these things on your own.

[BDunnell]

I have time on my hands, and you could choose not to read it. Unlike Jan, I respect your opinion, even if I don't often agree with it. If I irritate you, put me on ignore now because I am going to state what I feel.

And so am I, confident in the knowledge that my views haven't been infected by grand notions of global conspiracies.

Dragging this thread kicking and screaming back to UKIP, I have just been reading in Private Eye an account of a recent UKIP meeting at which the party stated its typically considered position on climate change — a position which, disturbingly, a large number of our North American friends on these forums would line up behind, despite the fact that, being a position adopted by UKIP, it is bonkers. In the course of this gathering, the main speaker referred to the likes of Angela Merkel and Jacques Chirac as conspiring to create a 'world government'. The notion is ludicrous to any sane individual, hence its being offered seriously by UKIP.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And so am I, confident in the knowledge that my views haven't been infected by grand notions of global conspiracies.

Dragging this thread kicking and screaming back to UKIP, I have just been reading in Private Eye an account of a recent UKIP meeting at which the party stated its typically considered position on climate change — a position which, disturbingly, a large number of our North American friends on these forums would line up behind, despite the fact that, being a position adopted by UKIP, it is bonkers. In the course of this gathering, the main speaker referred to the likes of Angela Merkel and Jacques Chirac as conspiring to create a 'world government'. The notion is ludicrous to any sane individual, hence its being offered seriously by UKIP.

Ben, I don't see any global conspiracies, just a lot of like minded thinking that is not based in anything but ideological rose coloured glasses when there is much room for second opinions and skepticsm. As for the North Americans of this forum who fight the notion of climate change, it may be we see it differently because our economies are resource based, and we refuse to see our economic well being flushed down the toilet for a scientific theory that does have holes in it. The Email scandal at East Anglia doesn't do anything to make me want to change my mind. The UKIP may be raving loons, and likely are. Most fringe parties in Britain are full of kooks but that doesn't mean they cant occasionally be right.

Climate change or lack thereof shouldn't be a political football, and it WOULDN'T if gov'ts just got on with telling industry to get on with carbon capture and CO2 reductions based in something other than Cap and Trade, which actually does NOTHING to reduce CO2. I may not agree on what is causing global warming, but I would live with the government reducing CO2 with a rational plan. What Kyoto and Copenhagen proposed was just political nonsense...