What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
AshVX220 said:
...
Sorry BV, I'm sure you have an amazing lifestyle compared to me etc, etc. It's just not for me. I'm far too common.
I bet I could out common you. My dad is personally to blame for the Lucas alternators on all your cars being so rubbish. I would like to think that he did it as a radical gesture of fSorry BV, I'm sure you have an amazing lifestyle compared to me etc, etc. It's just not for me. I'm far too common.
k you, you bourgeois gits with your cars and stuff, but to be frank I think he did it because he'd been out on the lash the night before.PS: motor collection slashed by tax bill, hey ho.
Breadvan72 said:
Joking aside, and re internet debate in general (all pointless, of course) it sometimes makes me just a bit sad to see how ill informed people are about stuff (all stuff, not just politics) when there are so many opportunities to find stuff out. Variety of opinions is a mighty fine thing, but the basic concept of informing yourself before you express an opinion seems to be a vanishing notion. Perhaps I was just lucky in having teachers at a 1970s Compo school and a 1980s (free at the time) university who owned the biggest BS detectors ever invented and gave me a smaller version to keep when I left. It may also be a growing up before the internet thing. I don't know.
I used to think idiots mouthing off in bars were small in number before the invention of the internet. The people I found myself associating with socially, through my education and professionally all seemed to be relatively intelligent and critical (with a few exceptions to add a bit of colour). The internet age with its offer of a voice for anyone with too much time, too many opinions and too little knowledge has shattered that illusion. Not solely the preserve of "political" discussions, even threads on prosaic or car matters (I've heard these can be found elsewhere on Pistonheads - but that might be a myth) so frequently contain utter nonsense "debated" with the critical analysis and good manners school-playgrounds should be ashamed to display. Rudeness, ignorance, crass generalisations, unashamed prejudice and hypocrisy amongst other undesirable qualities manifest themselves so readily. Humility, a wilingness to listen and to be educated, even politeness, seem in short supply.I'm unconvinced it's a generational thing, mind, as the "old" seem as bad as the "young". That said, I'm not exposed to the yoof of today as much as I used to be.
A bit off topic, though, and perhaps a minor early mid-life rant to be ignored. <shrugs>
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Breadvan72 said:
s2art said:
Breadvan72 said:
My work revolves to a large extent around legislation and regulations. Most of it has nothing to do with the EU, and most of it has nothing to do with Parliament. It's mostly prepared by departmental (UK) civil servants, and often badly (but that's another debate).
We are very badly misgoverned (party in power regardless), but the misgovernment happens mainly in Whitehall and Downing Street, not in Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg.
'Mats Persson, director of the think-tank Open Europe, said: “This study reveals that putting a number on the percentage of UK laws coming from the EU is almost impossible. But, in any case, it is far more important to measure the actual impact that EU laws have on the economy and individuals on a day-to-day basis. We are very badly misgoverned (party in power regardless), but the misgovernment happens mainly in Whitehall and Downing Street, not in Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg.
“Our research, based on the Government’s own figures, shows that in 2009, 59 percent of the regulatory costs facing individuals, businesses and the public sector in the UK stemmed from EU legislation. This is a far more useful measure than merely counting individual laws without any sense of their relative importance – and it shows that the EU now has a massive impact on the UK.”
That was a few years ago. Since then the EU has taken over regulation of banks and financial services. So it will be higher now.
So I call BS BV, even the House of Commons believes that the EU has over 50% control of our law.
One of the worst things about the EU is the undue regulatory costs that many of its measures impose, but all modern Governments love regulation, and I doubt that the burden would be reduced very much if the UK leaves the EU. A bit, maybe, and that may be a reason for leaving, but it is foolish to imagine that if all the EU rules vanish overnight they will not be replaced, for the most part, with similar stiff home grown. As noted above, it could even be worse: we could end up like Norway - complying with the rules, paying a big subscription, and not having any real access even to the faulty and flawed deliberative processes of the law making bodies.
Breadvan72 said:
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
And they're still a broadly right wing Italian populist party, and they're still apparently nothing to do with the idiots who got lost in a boat, and they're still no more bedfellows of UKIP than the various loons Guam has pointed out are bedfellows of Labour and the Conservatives.An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
And FWIW I would call the Bulgarian communist party of the 1980s a lot more sinister than Lega Nord.
For all your banging on about people being ill or misinformed you do a fair line in trotting out poor and wrong information.
Breadvan72 said:
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Is the virtue you see there movement towards the centre or movement towards the left or movement towards electability? Would you say that Blair was more admirable than Benn for the same reason? He was certainly more effective, I suppose.An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
s2art said:
Hmmm. Do I believe you or the House of Commons library? Or for that matter a pro-EU think tank (open Europe). I guess I will go with the HoC library on this. Its a puzzle why you dont observe more EU initiated law, are you sure that you actually know how the UK law which you deal with originated? Do you know how many statuary instruments are created by civil servants implementing EU directives?
A preliminary observation: The House of Commons Library is just a big library with stuff in it. Some of it is useful, some not. A document gains no magic kudos just because of which shelf it is on. More importantly, look at what the document actually says, not what you want it to say. Measuring regulatory impact is important, and the impact is too great. That does not mean that control of law making now lies with Brussels for over half the time that the Government machine is plugged in.
I look at legislation for a living. Do you? If domestic legislation is implementing EU legislation, I find that out, as it affects how you apply the legislation. If you had any idea of how much legislation issues from the machine each year, you would not ask if anyone checks its origins, rule by rule, because no one can. No one sees all the stuff, and those who have to see some of it see it piecemeal. What I can tell you is that I see the rules in the wild, as it were, and about one in seven or so that I have to deal with has EU derivation. This is within a broad civil practice covering business law in general, public law and regulatory actvity, employment law and a bit of meeja stuff.
I am not telling you how much EU law is out there for political reasons - it's just the boring reality. Perhaps I am perversely trying to help UKIP along by saying that it should target the real EU problems. Undue legal control from Brussels is not top of the pile of problems, but Farage bangs on about it (I think mendaciously), as it plays with voters who don't fact check.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 16:46
steveT350C said:
Why do you think they 'don't like immigrants'.
Fear, ignorance, colonial arrogance, post colonial guilt, greed, perhaps they were only children and never learned to share, perhaps they just like identifying the weak in society and blaming everything on them... Who knows? Guam said:
Give me a forthright bunch of folks with "flaws"
Forthright? Seriously? Farage is a consummate politician in the same way as Johnson, but without the latter's intelligence. I enjoy a debate but to make out that this bloke, whose flaws are far from hidden, is in some way different to the rest is rather farcical. And, let's face it, he's the most sensible of the bunch, not that that is saying much. otolith said:
Breadvan72 said:
What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.
An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Is the virtue you see there movement towards the centre or movement towards the left or movement towards electability? Would you say that Blair was more admirable than Benn for the same reason? He was certainly more effective, I suppose.An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.
Another analogy: once a terrorist, always a terrorists? Michael Collins, Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin, even Martin McGuinness may suggest otherwise.
That's true, though it does lead to the situation where we have a choice of parties with broadly similar policies and different coloured ties.
Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
otolith said:
That's true, though it does lead to the situation where we have a choice of parties with broadly similar policies and different coloured ties.
Most people have broadly similar needs and desires (health care, education, protection from crime, prosperity). The differences are typically how to achieve that, even if the bullet points are the same.Breadvan72 said:
s2art said:
Hmmm. Do I believe you or the House of Commons library? Or for that matter a pro-EU think tank (open Europe). I guess I will go with the HoC library on this. Its a puzzle why you dont observe more EU initiated law, are you sure that you actually know how the UK law which you deal with originated? Do you know how many statuary instruments are created by civil servants implementing EU directives?
A preliminary observation: The House of Commons Library is just a big library with stuff in it. Some of it is useful, some not. A document gains no magic kudos just because of which shelf it is on. More importantly, look at what the document actually says, not what you want it to say. Measuring regulatory impact is important, and the impact is too great. That does not mean that control of law making now lies with Brussels for over half the time that the Government machine is plugged in.
I look at legislation for a living. Do you? If domestic legislation is implementing EU legislation, I find that out, as it affects how you apply the legislation. If you had any idea of how much legislation issues from the machine each year, you would not ask if anyone checks its origins, rule by rule, because no one can. No one sees all the stuff, and those who have to see some of it see it piecemeal. What I can tell you is that I see the rules in the wild, as it were, and about one in seven or so that I have to deal with has EU derivation. This is within a broad civil practice covering business law in general, public law and regulatory actvity, employment law and a bit of meeja stuff.
I am not telling you how much EU law is out there for political reasons - it's just the boring reality. Perhaps I am perversely trying to help UKIP along by saying that it should target the real EU problems. Undue legal control from Brussels is not top of the pile of problems, but Farage bangs on about it (I think mendaciously), as it plays with voters who don't fact check.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 9th April 16:46
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_law-29587
Breadvan72 said:
s2art said:
Hmmm. Do I believe you or the House of Commons library? Or for that matter a pro-EU think tank (open Europe). I guess I will go with the HoC library on this. Its a puzzle why you dont observe more EU initiated law, are you sure that you actually know how the UK law which you deal with originated? Do you know how many statuary instruments are created by civil servants implementing EU directives?
A preliminary observation: The House of Commons Library is just a big library with stuff in it. Some of it is useful, some not. A document gains no magic kudos just because of which shelf it is on. More importantly, look at what the document actually says, not what you want it to say. Measuring regulatory impact is important, and the impact is too great. That does not mean that control of law making now lies with Brussels for over half the time that the Government machine is plugged in.
I look at legislation for a living. Do you? If domestic legislation is implementing EU legislation, I find that out, as it affects how you apply the legislation. If you had any idea of how much legislation issues from the machine each year, you would not ask if anyone checks its origins, rule by rule, because no one can. No one sees all the stuff, and those who have to see some of it see it piecemeal. What I can tell you is that I see the rules in the wild, as it were, and about one in seven or so that I have to deal with has EU derivation. This is within a broad civil practice covering business law in general, public law and regulatory actvity, employment law and a bit of meeja stuff.
I am not telling you how much EU law is out there for political reasons - it's just the boring reality. Perhaps I am perversely trying to help UKIP along by saying that it should target the real EU problems. Undue legal control from Brussels is not top of the pile of problems, but Farage bangs on about it (I think mendaciously), as it plays with voters who don't fact check.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 9th April 16:46
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_law-29587
otolith said:
That's true, though it does lead to the situation where we have a choice of parties with broadly similar policies and different coloured ties.
Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
Despite signs of polarisation and extremism of left and right across Europe, it may well be that most of us are still somewhere close to the centre, moving slightly to left and right occasionally as stuff happens. Despite the best efforts of the Mail et al to make people nasty, frightened, and full of hate, most people aren't. If this is so, parties like UKIP can never be more than talking points whilst things carry on more or less as usual. Interesting phenomena, but transient and ultimately irrelevant. Terrorism is a means, not an end. It's what you do when you can't get what you want out of the political system, perhaps because the system is stacked against you, perhaps because not enough people agree with you.
Terrorism: I agree with your analysis.
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
Why do you think they 'don't like immigrants'.
Fear, ignorance, colonial arrogance, post colonial guilt, greed, perhaps they were only children and never learned to share, perhaps they just like identifying the weak in society and blaming everything on them... Who knows? Breadvan72 said:
I would say that moving towards moderation is always a good thing. The centre is not a terrible place to be, and is where most of the electorate probably is most of the time.
What if it's still wrong?If you were a moderate in the Soviet Union in the 80s, or in Britain in the 70s then you would have been wrong and the "extremists" were right.
s2art said:
It is an excellent site that fairly summarises the arguments and makes good the point that the question "how much from where?" has no single answer, and is a meaningless question in any event. If by any chance you think that site is supporting the UKIP argument for 70% plus (a figure seemingly plucked, possibly by accident but more likely on purpose, from the Euro Parliament mix up alluded to on the site), then you must have a different copy of the internet to the one I've got here. HonestIago said:
FredClogs said:
steveT350C said:
Why do you think they 'don't like immigrants'.
Fear, ignorance, colonial arrogance, post colonial guilt, greed, perhaps they were only children and never learned to share, perhaps they just like identifying the weak in society and blaming everything on them... Who knows? t policy but in this UKIP mirrors the policy of all the other political parties, they're not alone amongst politicians of pandering to the stupidity of the xenophobic masses, "I don't want foreigners here but I suppose if they're doctors then I'll make an exception" is basically the policy of practically every nation on earth - and they're all wrong. The Kipper mantra of "open door policy under LibLabCon" is complete nonsense, never happened, never will (unless I wrestle control).FWIW there is a list as long as both my arms of people who came to this country to take jobs as bus drivers and factory workers who succeeded and whose offspring continue to succeed and contribute a great deal to the UK economy, even some of our great british institutions are infact thanks to unskilled labour coming from abroad.
The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.
I suspect I have very little in common with you, the fact we share a place of birth does nothing to bind me to you than the next man of the boat, sorry...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff