Lisbon Treaty , Yes or No or maybe

[AndrewW-G]

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

[odyssey2200]

i voted No and in an election will vote for any party that promises to get the fk out of the EU nd to stop all this climate bks!

[Jasandjules]

turbobloke said:

Hmm, given that there is a High Court decision that both sides of the story should be told in schools, I do wonder if there is anything "anti" MMGW in the pack. I mean, I would hate to see someone in contempt of court......

[nonegreen]

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

Ah a wker has come among us. You have misunderstood where you are. This is not an academic forum its a place where people come to have a little fun, maybe make a comment or two and perhaps take the rise out of others.

Therefore I don't need to provide a source and references. However as I have spent the least 25 years contracting with the civil service I, unlike you actually know what I am talking about.

[hidetheelephants]

nonegreen said:

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

Ah a wker has come among us. You have misunderstood where you are. This is not an academic forum its a place where people come to have a little fun, maybe make a comment or two and perhaps take the rise out of others.

Therefore I don't need to provide a source and references. However as I have spent the least 25 years contracting with the civil service I, unlike you actually know what I am talking about.

Not wishing to side entirely with AndrewW-G, I'm curious how this material can be printed seeing as how the conservatives currently have no more stated policies than can be written on the back of a stamp. I say this as someone who would vote tory at the next election if I lived in Englandshire(I live in Scotland. Sorry Annabel, you've not got my vote)

[AndrewW-G]

nonegreen said:

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

Ah a wker has come among us. You have misunderstood where you are. This is not an academic forum its a place where people come to have a little fun, maybe make a comment or two and perhaps take the rise out of others.

Therefore I don't need to provide a source and references. However as I have spent the least 25 years contracting with the civil service I, unlike you actually know what I am talking about.

So what your saying is that you cant prove even the slightest thing that you've posted oh and just for the record prior to leaving to play with rusty Italian cars for a living, I too was a contractor and I too worked in the government \ civil service sector

[triggersbroom]

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

Ah a wker has come among us. You have misunderstood where you are. This is not an academic forum its a place where people come to have a little fun, maybe make a comment or two and perhaps take the rise out of others.

Therefore I don't need to provide a source and references. However as I have spent the least 25 years contracting with the civil service I, unlike you actually know what I am talking about.

So what your saying is that you cant prove even the slightest thing that you've posted oh and just for the record prior to leaving to play with rusty Italian cars for a living, I too was a contractor and I too worked in the government \ civil service sector

come on fellas - chill

[nonegreen]

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

noners, who runs the country then?

The civil service of course. Who else? If not then why are there detailed proposals ready to fulfil conservative policy already printed and the publicity materials are already waiting to go to print?

Source or you talking ste

Ah a wker has come among us. You have misunderstood where you are. This is not an academic forum its a place where people come to have a little fun, maybe make a comment or two and perhaps take the rise out of others.

Therefore I don't need to provide a source and references. However as I have spent the least 25 years contracting with the civil service I, unlike you actually know what I am talking about.

So what your saying is that you cant prove even the slightest thing that you've posted oh and just for the record prior to leaving to play with rusty Italian cars for a living, I too was a contractor and I too worked in the government \ civil service sector

No what I am saying is over a period of 25 years I have seen the documentaion and held discussions with senior civil servants about future developments which have, hanceforth become government policy. I was not a contractor. I was implementing large government funded contracts. I have prepared schedules of work to be implemented 5 years hence and, to my surprise I found them becoming part of government policy. I do not need to and indeed refuse to join in with this ludicrous dead end boring diatribe of crap with some source or so called supporting evidence being refuted by an equal ammount of crap with supporting evidence. I know what I did and I know how the system works. I was part of it for a long time. Sure Blair and Brown have some influence but the likes of Blunket and Harperson are irrelevent. The nation is managed by a network of permanent civil servants and all the strategies put in place by governments to displace the seat of power have failed. Now if the rest of you want to continue to behave like your in a 6th form classroom thats fine. Include me out though, and dont ask me for sources, especially if you are a little prick whos mummy has just stopped changing your nappies and youve now reached university to study politics.

[Skywalker]

I have just had a read through the Treaty, and IMO it is all about creating the Country of Europa.

It specifically states it's intention to have the trappings of a Nation State, and will have a Parliament sitting above the Committee of Regions - the modern euro equivalent of local and national government - but the governments of the 'member states' seem to get nailed.

Article 309 includes the bit where a specific member state's representatives can be banned from voting. What joy.

Now, I was looking for the fabled exit clause - thinking that maybe CMD was hoping to see it ratified and then opt out - but I'm damned if I can find it.

And please don't think the French want it, as all the normal french that I know (i.e not in power) think it is terrible for their economy.

Time to get my immigration score from Canada & New Zealand

[sleep envy]

nonegreen said:

No what I am saying is over a period of 25 years I have seen the documentaion and held discussions with senior civil servants about future developments which have, hanceforth become government policy. I was not a contractor. I was implementing large government funded contracts. I have prepared schedules of work to be implemented 5 years hence and, to my surprise I found them becoming part of government policy. I do not need to and indeed refuse to join in with this ludicrous dead end boring diatribe of crap with some source or so called supporting evidence being refuted by an equal ammount of crap with supporting evidence. I know what I did and I know how the system works. I was part of it for a long time. Sure Blair and Brown have some influence but the likes of Blunket and Harperson are irrelevent. The nation is managed by a network of permanent civil servants and all the strategies put in place by governments to displace the seat of power have failed. Now if the rest of you want to continue to behave like your in a 6th form classroom thats fine. Include me out though, and dont ask me for sources, especially if you are a little prick whos mummy has just stopped changing your nappies and youve now reached university to study politics.

of course govts come and go with the mandarins staying in place but I find it very hard to beleive that they are the real policy makers

surely in order to implement change they can't just push through policy?

[hidetheelephants]

Skywalker said:

I have just had a read through the Treaty, and IMO it is all about creating the Country of Europa.

It specifically states it's intention to have the trappings of a Nation State, and will have a Parliament sitting above the Committee of Regions - the modern euro equivalent of local and national government - but the governments of the 'member states' seem to get nailed.

Article 309 includes the bit where a specific member state's representatives can be banned from voting. What joy.

Now, I was looking for the fabled exit clause - thinking that maybe CMD was hoping to see it ratified and then opt out - but I'm damned if I can find it.

And please don't think the French want it, as all the normal french that I know (i.e not in power) think it is terrible for their economy.

Time to get my immigration score from Canada & New Zealand

I'm curious about this; at the base level legally, does it have to be written down? Denying a people self-determination is already outlawed by the UN; we are a people, therefore if a majority of us want out we're out. Anything written by some policy wonk in Brussels/Strasbourg is null and indeed void; it cannot override basic rights.

Note to trolls; I am neither for nor against our membership of the EU. We are repeatedly told that departure from the EU would result in a plague of frogs, the sky falling in, economic armaggedon(Heads' up; we're already there), and generally bad stuff. Hypothetically, what really would happen? With a sensible head on, a mutually negotiated departure would involve using existing trade arrangements until a tarriff system could be agreed; using NAFTA as an example, that's going to take a minimum of 5 years(this is being done by civil servants, so it's not quick) so change really equals no change. Outwith the tangible world of physically traded goods, the multinationals don't pay more than lipservice to national or regional trade laws/restrictions(the recent economic events should make this abundantly clear), so they really don't care if we're in or out; out would be better as EU employment law is likely to make it harder/costlier to hire and fire.

Going back to the Lisbon treaty itself; european defence policy? Don't make me laugh. The ERRF has been a pointless paper tiger since inception more than a decade ago, because nobody wants their troops lead by some other country's officers or politicians. What is the point of this presidency other than to provide a fat honourarium for some ego polishing apparatchik with little more to do than shake hands, kiss babys and impregnate mistresses.

[nonegreen]

sleep envy said:

nonegreen said:

No what I am saying is over a period of 25 years I have seen the documentaion and held discussions with senior civil servants about future developments which have, hanceforth become government policy. I was not a contractor. I was implementing large government funded contracts. I have prepared schedules of work to be implemented 5 years hence and, to my surprise I found them becoming part of government policy. I do not need to and indeed refuse to join in with this ludicrous dead end boring diatribe of crap with some source or so called supporting evidence being refuted by an equal ammount of crap with supporting evidence. I know what I did and I know how the system works. I was part of it for a long time. Sure Blair and Brown have some influence but the likes of Blunket and Harperson are irrelevent. The nation is managed by a network of permanent civil servants and all the strategies put in place by governments to displace the seat of power have failed. Now if the rest of you want to continue to behave like your in a 6th form classroom thats fine. Include me out though, and dont ask me for sources, especially if you are a little prick whos mummy has just stopped changing your nappies and youve now reached university to study politics.

of course govts come and go with the mandarins staying in place but I find it very hard to beleive that they are the real policy makers

surely in order to implement change they can't just push through policy?

I think the devil is in the detail really. For example I believe the intention of the Thatcher government was to address the skills issues by the creation of an overarching strategy to give the private sector the means and the power to train and certificate the future workforce and endow them with skills needed for future cutting edge performance. As a result of interference from senior civil servants the detail has resulted in a thoroughly watered down system which in the fullness of time has achived the following

The qualification process is often longer the the pre 88 system.

The currency of new qualifications is still not keeping pace with change in technology

Far from moving control from examining bodies and colleges of FE to industry, the policy has resulted in further strengthening of quangos such as LSCs and QCA. Together with a separate inspecorate and of course the underpinning of a department.

Control of education and training is now less effective than in the 60s. As a result LSCs have promised beyond budget, leaving at least one college left without a building to teach in.

I picked the above example because the nature of FE and training is such that the politicians are probably commited to its success. There is no agenda for failure unlike say nuclear power or defense. Despite this the standards of education have fallen consistently over the last 20 years. Training standards have fallen to the point where people gain qualifications with no training taking place. (On occasion without the candidate even being aware they were a candidate). Far from a reduction in the admin costs of educating and training the workforce we have seen an enormous increase in the infrastructure. In truth a new infrastructure has been built while the old redundant infrastructure such as LEAs has been left in place despite serving no unique or useful purpose.

In conclusion, the politicians started with good intentions, the civil servants have implimented the policy to the letter, of course taking into account the need to preserve certain elements which the politicians wanted to become extinct. The result is a mess. On closer examination its a mess that fulfills the purpose of proliferating the public sector, if possible making it even more essential just to maintain the status quo. Its clever, very clever but to anyone who has observed it from close up, its utterly tranparent. The politicians are not in control.

Edited by nonegreen on Tuesday 6th October 00:59

[elster]

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

elster said:

AndrewW-G said:

nonegreen said:

We will learn to have no respect for suthority and we will at least stop being run by incompetent english ex public schoolboys.

You do know that winky isn't English and didn’t go to a public school don’t you? . . . . . . . . and just for good measure Blairs also Scottish having been born and for a good portion of his childhood raised in Edinburgh (both parents being Glaswegian)

Given that Blair’s predecessor’s Sir John Major, Baroness Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson & Edward Heath were all educated in STATE schools and all bar Callaghan in state Grammar schools I fail to see where in modern times we’ve been ruled by public school boys, with the exception of Blair!

You do realise Brown isn't really in charge.

You are clearly under the misaprehension that politicoes run the country. You are of course deluded.

Source or GTF

[conspiracy mode]
Bilderberg Group

A group of the most influential people in the world, who invite politicians to come along.

[/conspiracy mode]

Edited by elster on Tuesday 6th October 01:13

[Shay HTFC]

Jasandjules said:

turbobloke said:

Its nothing new. Not the best example, but ask a British kid about WW2. They will recall the facts from a distinctly Allied point of view. Tell them that the vast majority of deaths and fighting occured on the Eastern Front, with the number of German, Russian and Chinese deaths dwarfing the number of British deaths many times over and they will stare on blankly.
A Russian kid will probably be the complete opposite, having barely heard of the battles occuring on the Western Front.

Whatever subject the state finds important will find its way into mainstream education taught with the relevant bias. It's happened throughout history and will continue to do so.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 6th October 01:12

[hidetheelephants]

nonegreen said:

sleep envy said:

nonegreen said:

stuff

stuff

I think the devil is in the detail really. For example I believe the intention of the Thatcher government was to address the skills issues by the creation of an overarching strategy to give the private sector the means and the power to train and certificate the future workforce and endow them with skills needed for future cutting edge performance. As a result of interference from senior civil servants the detail has resulted in a thoroughly watered down system which in the fullness of time has achived the following

The qualification process is often longer the the pre 88 system.

The currency of new qualifications is still not keeping pace with change in technology

Far from moving control from examining bodies and colleges of FE to industry, the policy has resulted in further strengthening of quangos such as LSCs and QCA. Together with a separate inspecorate and of course the underpinning of a department.

Control of education and training is now less effective than in the 60s. As a result LSCs have promised beyond budget, leaving at least one college left without a building to teach in.

I picked the above example because the nature of FE and training is such that the politicians are probably commited to its success. There is no agenda for failure unlike say nuclear power or defense. Despite this the standards of education have fallen consistently over the last 20 years. Training standards have fallen to the point where people gain qualifications with no training taking place. (On occasion without the candidate even being aware they were a candidate). Far from a reduction in the admin costs of educating and training the workforce we have seen an enormous increase in the infrastructure. In truth a new infrastructure has been built while the old redundant infrastructure such as LEAs has been left in place despite serving no unique or useful purpose.

In conclusion, the politicians started with good intentions, the civil servants have implimented the policy to the letter, of course taking into account the need to preserve certain elements which the politicians wanted to become extinct. The result is a mess. On closer examination its a mess that fulfills the purpose of proliferating the public sector, if possible making it even more essential just to maintain the status quo. Its clever, very clever but to anyone who has observed it from close up, its utterly tranparent. The politicians are not in control.

But this is an illustration of no-one being in control; a hierarchy of civil servants administering their little bits of paper with no measurably useful output. This isn't conspiracy or subversion on the part of the bureaucrats, merely tangible evidence of the fact that the one thing incompetents fear is making a decision; in this world nobody gets fired for doing nothing, and doing nothing means no mistakes. When the danger of a decision looms, refer upwards, who will in turn send back down for a position paper and 'consultation'; by the time this inexorable process has completed its deathless cycle, the original (non)protagonists have left for another nonjob in the adjacent office. And repeat ad nauseam.

[segg]

Skywalker said:

I have just had a read through the Treaty, and IMO it is all about creating the Country of Europa.

It specifically states it's intention to have the trappings of a Nation State, and will have a Parliament sitting above the Committee of Regions - the modern euro equivalent of local and national government - but the governments of the 'member states' seem to get nailed.

Article 309 includes the bit where a specific member state's representatives can be banned from voting. What joy.

Now, I was looking for the fabled exit clause - thinking that maybe CMD was hoping to see it ratified and then opt out - but I'm damned if I can find it.

And please don't think the French want it, as all the normal french that I know (i.e not in power) think it is terrible for their economy.

Time to get my immigration score from Canada & New Zealand

Article 49a PDF Page 31

Edited by segg on Tuesday 6th October 06:33

[Skywalker]

Thankee Segg.

I must have gone word-blind have stared at that text for longer than I should.

And back to my point, aided by my glamourous assistant Segg, perhaps CMD and Hague know that even if the Treaty is 27-up, they can ask / tell HMTQ that if it is the will of the people, they will withdraw the country in her name (after all, Winky and Mili-amp signed us up in her name)

[sleep envy]

nonegreen said:

I think the devil is in the detail really. For example I believe the intention of the Thatcher government was to address the skills issues by the creation of an overarching strategy to give the private sector the means and the power to train and certificate the future workforce and endow them with skills needed for future cutting edge performance. As a result of interference from senior civil servants the detail has resulted in a thoroughly watered down system which in the fullness of time has achived the following

The qualification process is often longer the the pre 88 system.

The currency of new qualifications is still not keeping pace with change in technology

Far from moving control from examining bodies and colleges of FE to industry, the policy has resulted in further strengthening of quangos such as LSCs and QCA. Together with a separate inspecorate and of course the underpinning of a department.

Control of education and training is now less effective than in the 60s. As a result LSCs have promised beyond budget, leaving at least one college left without a building to teach in.

I picked the above example because the nature of FE and training is such that the politicians are probably commited to its success. There is no agenda for failure unlike say nuclear power or defense. Despite this the standards of education have fallen consistently over the last 20 years. Training standards have fallen to the point where people gain qualifications with no training taking place. (On occasion without the candidate even being aware they were a candidate). Far from a reduction in the admin costs of educating and training the workforce we have seen an enormous increase in the infrastructure. In truth a new infrastructure has been built while the old redundant infrastructure such as LEAs has been left in place despite serving no unique or useful purpose.

In conclusion, the politicians started with good intentions, the civil servants have implimented the policy to the letter, of course taking into account the need to preserve certain elements which the politicians wanted to become extinct. The result is a mess. On closer examination its a mess that fulfills the purpose of proliferating the public sector, if possible making it even more essential just to maintain the status quo. Its clever, very clever but to anyone who has observed it from close up, its utterly tranparent. The politicians are not in control.

Edited by nonegreen on Tuesday 6th October 00:59

doesn't really prove your point, in fact it argues against it more than anything

[odyssey2200]

Shay HTFC said:

Jasandjules said:

turbobloke said:

Its nothing new. Not the best example, but ask a British kid about WW2. They will recall the facts from a distinctly Allied point of view. Tell them that the vast majority of deaths and fighting occured on the Eastern Front, with the number of German, Russian and Chinese deaths dwarfing the number of British deaths many times over and they will stare on blankly.
A Russian kid will probably be the complete opposite, having barely heard of the battles occuring on the Western Front.

Whatever subject the state finds important will find its way into mainstream education taught with the relevant bias. It's happened throughout history and will continue to do so.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 6th October 01:12

At least the battles on both fronts can be proven to have happened.
Education the kids in to the local events is better than teaching them about a global fairy tale.

[JagLover]

I hope the treaty is still unratified when the Conservatives come to power. Because to hold a referendum after ratification would take us into unchartered waters.

I do have a big issue with the media about this topic. Much of the broadcast media seem to have an attitude "same old Tories obsessing about Europe, which doesn't matter", do they even have any idea how much UK legislation now is simply passing EU regulation into law?.