Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

For Len Glover : Sad day for the history of this country

13»

Comments

  • edited October 2007
    [cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]

    My scepticism stems from the constitution having been rejected by other countries, yet they try and push it through, relatively unchanged, but with the word constitution removed from the title. This has been confirmed in leaked papers from Merkel.

    If it will deliver so many positives then why the need to be so cloak and dagger? Hence my feelings on the naivety

    Fair enough but perhaps you might consider that almost all EU treaty type announcements take this kind of course.

    Scenario A - Germany wanted the Constitution so they can say, "The Treaty is substantially the same as the Constitution"
    but take these two example statements:

    1. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will be harmonised"
    2. "All criminal laws made in all countries in the EU will not be harmonised"

    The change from 1. to 2. can satisfy both the statements,

    "the second is at least 90% the same as the first"

    and

    "the second phrase is completely different to the first"

    That's what we have here with Merkell and Brown's different slant on things. Its actually the detail that counts. So who is naive? Well perhaps it's all of us who have not grasped enough of the detail and listen only to those we generally tend to trust to inform our view, which was the point in my earlier post.

    The Labour Govt didn't want the Constitution and indeed were praying that it would not be agreed. Now they can claim that the document isn't a "Constitution", because - well it's not called one, therefore it isn't. This allows Brown to riggle off the referendum hook. In practice from what I understand, the "red line" opt out which we have negotiated, were pretty much the same as ones we would have insisted upon if the Constitution became a reality.

    So where does that leave us.

    Well the Tory's smell some embarassing stuff for Brown so insist on a referendum (because they want to sound tough on Europe again after their shambles of the Major and post Major years). It also allows most of them (even the pro-europeans) to rally around the same policy.

    The Lib Dems rather liked the Constitution and know that the best chance they can have of having it is for it to be called a Treaty then they, like Labour can say, its not the same as the Constitution. They are then saying once the Treaty is ratified, there should be an "in or out" referendum. This I agree with but they are really only saying it to sound "democratic" and protect their votes in Tory/Lib Dem areas

    Labour have got to govern and know, as did Major before them, that they have a problem negotiating in the EU if every time there are things they don't like they say that they are going to have a referendum: given that all the States they are negotiating with know there is no constitutional reason for them holding one. That they and some allies have got the whole "Constitution", thing out of the Treaty with Europe now not having a separate "personality" with a foreign minister etc, is seen by them as a big result. I suspect that they know they can command a majority of both Houses on this basis (with Lib Dem support if necessary) and with the opt outs actually secured, probably feel this is the best they could achieve from a difficult position that they had with the old "Constitution" scenario.

    UKIP just want out of the EU.

    For me, as I have said over and over again, the benefits of being in, out weigh the benefits of being out for many reasons and I am frustrated that the debate is always hijacked (not in this thread, I admit) by "british" sausages, straight banana's, the Germans taking over and "who won the bloody war anyway" kind of nonsense.

    A small example of my frustration can be summed up by the following story:-

    I ran a small retail business here in Norwich for a number of years. When I took the business over, everything was weighed out for customers in pounds. The law at the time required us to weigh things in kilograms. We introduced this. If I had £1 for every time a customer moaned and blamed the EU, I'd be a rich man.

    "I don't understand this metric nonsense" said most customers over 40. Most under 40 were entirely au fait with it. For those of an older generation in particular, it seemed to be about an erosion of British way of life, with people a frightened of/reluctant to engage in change. Younger people on the other hand through things learned at school were fine. So for those wishing to keep pounds and ounces, I always used to ask them how much volume was a "bushell", and how many "chains" there were in a "furlong". Very few knew the answer. Metric measurements make so much sense yet we as a country still hang on to the illogical imperial measurements.

    After we introduced metric bag sizes, within a few weeks people were usually ok with it.

    I read somewhere that the original plan to introduce metric measurements was in 1870. Something still not properly embraced some 137 years later.

    I sold chemical fertilzers and pesticides. Some were withdrawn due to licencing issues. Pretty much everybody moaned and immediately blamed EU, even though it had nothing to do with it.

    Its the fear of change thats at the heart of this. Change is not always for the worse. Being stuck in an EU slow lane, holding out for the status quo when all others wish to move forward; or even worse coming out altogether will be incredibly perilous for our whole economy. That said we need a debate/referendum badly, to fix us in or out for another generation. I wish they would bring it on. (I can't see it happening though).
  • I have a vision that when I'm old and driving down the A303 towards Cornwall, I'll pass Stonehenge but won't be able to see it as it'll be surrounded by apartment blocks...
  • When people use the term 'Sun readers' what makes you a typical Sun reader? Or Guardian reader for that matter?

    I buy the Sun every day but very rarely get the chance to read it. God knows how anyone would find the time to even scan the bloody guardian let alone read one on a regular basis.

    I'm guessing that the average 'sun reader' is percieved as not knowing their arsehole from their earhole about anything other than football or x fecking factor?

    I treat politics and politicians with the contempt they deserve but think I know what I need to know as far as that they seem to be very good at lying and deception. Which in turn makes me think, it doesn't matter how much I know the ins and outs of a monkeys arsehole about an issue as it will always be handled in the way a politician feels it will benefit them
  • [cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]When people use the term 'Sun readers' what makes you a typical Sun reader? Or Guardian reader for that matter?

    I buy the Sun every day but very rarely get the chance to read it. God knows how anyone would find the time to even scan the bloody guardian let alone read one on a regular basis.

    I'm guessing that the average 'sun reader' is percieved as not knowing their arsehole from their earhole about anything other than football or x fecking factor?

    I treat politics and politicians with the contempt they deserve but think I know what I need to know as far as that they seem to be very good at lying and deception. Which in turn makes me think, it doesn't matter how much I know the ins and outs of a monkeys arsehole about an issue as it will always be handled in the way a politician feels it will benefit them

    Carter I assume you are aiming the Sun point at me. I buy the Sun two or three times a week (for the Football) and certainly much more than the Guardian. The Sun is brilliant at what it does, I just question it's stance on the EU which seems to be self-serving on the part of its owner Mr Murdoch. It would argue that it is merely representing its readers views in a colourful way. I think there's more to it than that. (Don't forget that Murdoch also owns The Times as well at it puts across similar views).

    I broadly agree with your final paragraph though. I would add however that I believe in the the UK that most want to do right by the people they represent and the country, but that often leads them to do some pretty grubby things to keep themselves in power. It's the nature of the beast.
  • It does annoy me that some people think their opinion is better than other people's just because of the daily rag they read...

    ALL papers have agendas..
  • Carter can i have yesterdays Sun as i missed a voucher for me £9.95 holiday
  • [cite]Posted By: Gump[/cite]It does annoy me that some people think their opinion is better than other people's just because of the daily rag they read...

    ALL papers have agendas..

    Of course all papers have agenda's,

    I only buy papers for their sport and news content, not for their opinions. No paper represents my views effectively and I don't care if they do because they are mine and not theirs.

    The Sun happens to be owned by a vastly influential pro-American former Australian with a massive media empire to protect and the EU has the muscle to call him to account (like they are with Microsoft, for example). Coincidence then that he has his papers lined up against the EU? As I have said, I buy The Sun (and The NoTW). I don't generally subscribe to their views which are not difficult to fathom as they put them across extremely effectively
  • edited October 2007
    Bing - I see what you're trying to say but my view still stands and no one has given me a straight answer to the question I've been asking all along.

    If this treaty is so beneficial then why was it rejected by 2 sets of peoples that are traditionally a lot less EU sceptical than us, and why are they trying to sneak it through again anyway? Its not just Merkel that has admitted its more or less exactly the same. Comically contradicting Browns attempted reassurance that it wasn't!

    I'm not anti-change but anti-change for its own sake and also annoyed that politicians from across Europe have this attitude of "we know best" ! You dont know best. You just have your own political career based agendas.

    Equally to insinuate that readers of Murdoch papers are blind to the true facts, because of their chosen papers slant, is a touch unfair as all papers have their slants to the left or right and are then chosen by people whose political feelings mirrored within them.
  • Whilst true that all papers have a political angle it is utterly inescapable that Murdoch is implacably opposed to any further European integration for fear that a stronger EU might have the balls to do what individual governments have been too weak to do and take him on for his clearly monopolistic practices.

    The man is an utter, utter menace to western democracy with his devotion to concentrating media ownership and diversity of opinion down to a single voice - his.

    Although politically opposed to Charlton Dan on many issues I agree with him to some extent here that the Pro-Europe politicians do themselves no favors with their cloak and dagger tactics and refusal to debate the pro Europe argument more aggressively, it is terribly damaging to them.
  • [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]The man is an utter, utter menace to western democracy with his devotion to concentrating media ownership and diversity of opinion down to a single voice - his

    Again you're implying that people who read Murdoch owned papers aren't capable of intelligent, independent thought based around their own ideals and views of the World.

    Why is anyone who reads The Times a lemming and Guardian readers free thinkers?
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited October 2007
    [cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]Bing - I see what you're trying to say but my view still stands and no one has given me a straight answer to the question I've been asking all along.

    Equally to insinuate that readers of Murdoch papers are blind to the true facts, because of their chosen papers slant, is a touch unfair as all papers have their slants to the left or right and are then chosen by people whose political feelings mirrored within them.

    I think many people choose papers which represent their views and many choose them knowing that papers slant things. There are some, my mother in law, for instance, who believes that everything printed in the paper is true!!!

    I often ask her where she has read some view or other, knowing she's lifted it straight out of the Daily Mail comment section - "Well it must be true, cos I read in in the Daily Mail", is her normal response. Some people can be duped by newspapers masquerading their views as fact.

    In the case of Murdoch, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose by perpetuating his papers anti-EU stance. Even if he influences 10% of the readership that balance really needs to be redressed.

    Its interesting to see then that in reality we are not too far away from one another, its just the place from which each of us started. That is the great nature of debate and why I am convinced that a proper debate where equal weight can be given to the "pro" as well as the "anti " case will see a narrowing of the divide.
  • I also accept OA's point that the Pro EU politicians have been woefully inadequate at making their case effectively and have tried to push things through without debate because they are afraid they will lose the arguement. That is wrong and must be addressed sooner rather than later.
  • CD - I am implying no such thing about Times/Guardian readers, that is not my point at all. What I am referring to is the fact that Murdoch wants to own as much as he can possibly get away with, has the means to buy huge amounts of media assets and does so with frightening regularity as seen with his purchase of The Wall Stree Journal in the US.

    Murdoch owns a huge number of business assets and now owns the most respected business journal in the world that is supposed to report objectively on his business interests - is that healthy?

    Moreover, the current poisonously partisan political system in the US, for example, can be attributed to many things but a key element has been Murdoch's positioning of the Fox News channel (now the leading cable news network in the country) as a blatant conduit for his political views and his support for the far-right Republican Party.

    Murdoch's has positioned Fox News as an opinion-based news network which takes its daily "talking points" from Republican Party HQ and spends all day defending the Bush administration and attacking its political rivals in order to push his political agenda presenting "opinion" as "news" but not telling the viewers that.

    He would do the same thing in the UK with Sky News if the Broadcasting Act did not demand fairness and equal time in news coverage and is known to detest what he calls Sky News's "left-wing" coverage. Can any reasonable person think the excellent Sky News is left'-wing? Adam Boulton left-wing?

    Murdoch already owns 70 PER CENT of newspaper circulation in the English-speaking world and 60 PER CENT of the world's English speaking pay TV viewers - that is a very dangerous situation for an individual to be allowed to hold so much influence over the worlds information channels.

    So, its not just a question of whether a reader believes or questions what they read but of the wider problem that because of such a diluted range of ownership that readers/viewers are only getting presented with a set of views or facts that suit someone like Murdoch, who is notorious for influencing in the editorial process at his papers.

    Without a wider range of ownership and caps on what people should be allowed to own this problem will only get worse.
  • Brilliant post OA. You write in a very informed way, do you work in the media at all?
  • [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]CD - I am implying no such thing about Times/Guardian readers, that is not my point at all. What I am referring to is the fact that Murdoch wants to own as much as he can possibly get away with, has the means to buy huge amounts of media assets and does so with frightening regularity as seen with his purchase of The Wall Stree Journal in the US.

    Murdoch owns a huge number of business assets and now owns the most respected business journal in the world that is supposed to report objectively on his business interests - is that healthy?

    Moreover, the current poisonously partisan political system in the US, for example, can be attributed to many things but a key element has been Murdoch's positioning of the Fox News channel (now the leading cable news network in the country) as a blatant conduit for his political views and his support for the far-right Republican Party.

    Murdoch's has positioned Fox News as an opinion-based news network which takes its daily "talking points" from Republican Party HQ and spends all day defending the Bush administration and attacking its political rivals in order to push his political agenda presenting "opinion" as "news" but not telling the viewers that.

    He would do the same thing in the UK with Sky News if the Broadcasting Act did not demand fairness and equal time in news coverage and is known to detest what he calls Sky News's "left-wing" coverage. Can any reasonable person think the excellent Sky News is left'-wing? Adam Boulton left-wing?

    Murdoch already owns 70 PER CENT of newspaper circulation in the English-speaking world and 60 PER CENT of the world's English speaking pay TV viewers - that is a very dangerous situation for an individual to be allowed to hold so much influence over the worlds information channels.

    So, its not just a question of whether a reader believes or questions what they read but of the wider problem that because of such a diluted range of ownership that readers/viewers are only getting presented with a set of views or facts that suit someone like Murdoch, who is notorious for influencing in the editorial process at his papers.

    Without a wider range of ownership and caps on what people should be allowed to own this problem will only get worse.

    I like the way you say the Republican party is far-right......yes they are the right-of-centre party in the US but they are hardly the nazi party..
  • [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]He would do the same thing in the UK with Sky News if the Broadcasting Act did not demand fairness and equal time in news coverage .

    If this is the case then please explain the BBC's blatant pro Labour stance?

    I've never been convinced of these sort of corporate conspiracy theories, that seem to arise as soon as one company / person is deemed to becoming too powerful and influential, by those that are frustrated by their own lack of influence in the World around them. I just see them as mud slinging and an extension the state of fear that people like report about in order to get the weak minded concerned and therefore on side.

    Personally OA I think you're taking all this "Murdoch World Domination" conspiracy theory far too seriously......

    There is no doubting that Murdoch has the clout to buy what he wants, and well done to him for working hard enough to be in the position to do so, however think for a minute about how naive it would be of him to think that he can push his right-wing political stance down the throats of the whole populace, therefore alienating people such as yourself whose political bias lies further to the left.

    As we have both agreed there needs to be a market to satisfy both sets of political taste buds, not just us right wing, baby murders ;-)
    [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]Without a wider range of ownership and caps on what people should be allowed to own this problem will only get worse.

    That's far too Stalinist to ever happen OA. This is a democratic, capitalist World. Not one were you can go around restricting peoples / companies right to trade
  • edited October 2007
    [cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]Its interesting to see then that in reality we are not too far away from one another, its just the place from which each of us started. That is the great nature of debate and why I am convinced that a proper debate where equal weight can be given to the "pro" as well as the "anti " case will see a narrowing of the divide.

    It is! Like you say, were after the same thing, just coming at it from differing sides of the centre. Head-on crash anyone? ;-)

    Also nice to be able to discuss something without the need for labelling / name calling and agree that perhaps some more discussion between the various sides would allow the EU, which I agree we are now so far entrenched with that we cannot do without, to be a much more efficient organisation.
  • Black Forest Reds mentioned it was the Conservatives who took us into Europe. Indeed they were the party in power at the time, but the decision was taken following a referendum, where the public decided whether or not they wanted to join a trading bloc with the rest of Europe.

    What we have now, with the EU looking to take over more powers all the time is completely different from what the public voted on.
  • [cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]He would do the same thing in the UK with Sky News if the Broadcasting Act did not demand fairness and equal time in news coverage .

    If this is the case then please explain the BBC's blatant pro Labour stance?

    I can't believe you are asking this question CD. Every opposition that I can remember accuses the BBC of being pro-establishment and every Government accuses them of being against them. This suggests to me that they generally get the balance right. For example I don't think the BBC could have been accused of being pro-Labour over the David Kelly affair. Gordon Browns sudden fall of his pedestal was in a large part due to the interogation by BBC journalists of his reasons why he "bottled" the election.
  • [cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Black Forest Reds mentioned it was the Conservatives who took us into Europe. Indeed they were the party in power at the time, but the decision was taken following a referendum, where the public decided whether or not they wanted to join a trading bloc with the rest of Europe.

    What we have now, with the EU looking to take over more powers all the time is completely different from what the public voted on.

    Not quite how it happened.

    Heath's Tories signed us up to the Common Market as it was then in 1972. Labour then won the 1974 General Election and to quell a potential backbench rebellion held a referendum in 1975 to decide whether or not we wanted to stay in the Common Market and the people decided that they did largely because the misleading impression was (deliberately) given that the arrangement was economic rather than political. I voted NO you won't be surprised to hear!

    Nobody under 50 years of age has had an opportunity to vote on this issue which nobody can dispute goes to the heart of how we are governed.

    In the interests of democracy that should be rectified in my opinion.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Thanks for putting me straight on that, I can barely remember it and was much too young to vote at the time. I agree 100% that a referendum is long overdue.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!