In fairness, we can't be 100% sure what would happen if we remain in the EU.
They might bring in regulations banning trainee doctors from having a "religious beard" Don't laugh............it could happen somewhere in Europe and end up as EU law !
Come to that, with 2 nutters in the world who have red buttons on their desk, maybe nothing matters ?
Ah, but if we stay the EU might also invent a time machine that we can use on our turn to go back and save Princess Diana.
I think it is outrageous that doctors are allowed to have religious beards. The first thing we should do with our new found 'sovereignty' is get them banned. In fact, it's a pity we didn't think of this earlier when we had some influence, we could have got them banned across Europe ;-)
In fairness, we can't be 100% sure what would happen if we remain in the EU.
They might bring in regulations banning trainee doctors from having a "religious beard" Don't laugh............it could happen somewhere in Europe and end up as EU law !
Come to that, with 2 nutters in the world who have red buttons on their desk, maybe nothing matters ?
They? If the UK remains in the EU 'they' continues to be 'we'.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
So that makes it alright?
I don't think you're keeping up with the conversation - @Valiantphil suggested that EU might ban "religious beards" or something then produced an example of a single doctor in a single hospital in France being asked to trim his beard and I pointed out that this didn't exactly amount to an EU member state, much less the whole of the EU, banning beards.
The question of whether it was right or wrong to ban religious beards for doctors hasn't been mentioned.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
So that makes it alright?
I don't think you're keeping up with the conversation - @Valiantphil suggested that EU might ban "religious beards" or something then produced an example of a single doctor in a single hospital in France being asked to trim his beard and I pointed out that this didn't exactly amount to an EU member state, much less the whole of the EU, banning beards.
The question of whether it was right or wrong to ban religious beards for doctors hasn't been mentioned.
To be fair, you've omitted where @Valiantphil clearly said "it could happen somewhere in Europe".
A beard ban would never happen as it would upset too many religitards. Not to mention it just being a silly and unworkable ban.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Car sales are down due to the diesel effect. About to buy my second new car in the last 18 months..Never did that before brexit. I can distort facts too. Just mailed JOB that on his website bet he wont mention that come Monday.
Blimey, thought you did some unionised job, turns out you are a hedge fund manager or something. Only people with money to burn buy two new cars, with their own money, in 18 months (given that you lose 20% on each new car due to depreciation). What has your car buying spree got to do with Brexit anyway, given that it hasn't happened yet?
Still it's good to know that some members of the downtrodden angry classes that politicians didn't listen to, are doing well.
I think Chippy should change his user name to WalterMitty.
Am able to do that because i earned thousands putting your friends dodgy work right with a nice thank you bonus.... If you had the skills you would be able to do it.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
So you spent precious time and energy e-mailing someone you despise Chippy? Funny that, when I find someone an objectionable cnut I just ignore them and get on with my life.
I like fair and balanced views especially from broadcasters.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
Apologies, I didn't get down to this part of your post.
Why not? because I'd hate to be as angry as a lot of people are on this thread. That wouldn't be cool.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
This very forum is an echo chamber. You surely don't find that assertion offensive or inflammatory?
What is the point in trying to have a reasoned debate on here when certain posters have regularly called all Brexiters morons, fucktards, racists, bigots and yet nobody on the remain side seems to call them out.
In fact their flags are removed by the mods!
Before the vote the debate was fairly sensible and respectful. Since the vote went against EU supporters the debate went down hill from that moment and hasn't recovered.
Sensible listers have moved on from eu threads. Like a mug I just continue to get drawn back in.
I post occasionally just to let some know that I haven't died yet. Sorry about that and I haven't changed my views just like the vast majority. Despite the best efforts of some.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
That's not how it works. The EU doesn't take every law for everything region of every member and then magically force that onto every other member. There are literally thousands upon thousands of laws that exist across member states of the EU that aren't part of any EU law.
For that ban to be enforced anywhere else first the French would have to think it such a good idea that it should go into EU law. Then it would have to go before a group of commissioners (selected by each of the member states) who, if they agree it's a great idea, would then draft a law. This would then go to the EU parliment, where there has to be a unanimous vote of all MEPs from every member state.
So for this law to be "forced" upon us, it would require our government appointed commissioner to help draft the law and then all our MEPs to vote for it, and then our government to decline to use their veto. Even then, there is no requirement to incorporate it into our laws word for word. Each state tends to interpret and enforce as they see fit to a certain extent.
This is nothing more than typical anti-EU scaremongering, "what if the EU force some crazy law on us" crap that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
That's not how it works. The EU doesn't take every law for everything region of every member and then magically force that onto every other member. There are literally thousands upon thousands of laws that exist across member states of the EU that aren't part of any EU law.
For that ban to be enforced anywhere else first the French would have to think it such a good idea that it should go into EU law. Then it would have to go before a group of commissioners (selected by each of the member states) who, if they agree it's a great idea, would then draft a law. This would then go to the EU parliment, where there has to be a unanimous vote of all MEPs from every member state.
So for this law to be "forced" upon us, it would require our government appointed commissioner to help draft the law and then all our MEPs to vote for it, and then our government to decline to use their veto. Even then, there is no requirement to incorporate it into our laws word for word. Each state tends to interpret and enforce as they see fit to a certain extent.
This is nothing more than typical anti-EU scaremongering, "what if the EU force some crazy law on us" crap that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
Well, no, I think you are incorrect.
My understanding of French law is that it is based on their Civil Code which doesn't recognise precedent in the same way that our Common Law does so the decision of one court isn't necessarily binding on other courts in the future (probably way more complicated than that but I haven't got time to pillage Wikipedia).
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Sensible listers have moved on from eu threads. Like a mug I just continue to get drawn back in.
I only tend to look in to laugh at the raging that keeps going on.
It's like watching a pack of dogs all chasing their own tails.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
Yes, the court's decision means that this can become or, more accurately, remain the norm in France, and only France...
But it is nothing to do with EU membership, and everything to do with the secular nature of the French Republic - many of the leading lights of 19th and 20th Century French politics were inspired by political Freemasonry and determined to limit the influence of the Catholic Church in many aspects of plublicly-funded public life. Secularism in the French Republic is a very strong tradition.
The case relates to a person seeking to work in a French state hospital, and the French state seeking to apply its rules (and the trainee doctor, in this case, agreed that his beard was a sign of his religious affiliation). The same would be the case if an individual sought to work in a French state hospital while displaying conspicuous symbols of Catholic, Protestant or Buddhist religious belief.
The only way that a similar EU law would be brought into being would be if a) it was in keeping with the existing body of EU laws (the Acquis) and b) if there was sufficiently widespread support across the member states and EU Parliament (difficult to imagine in the European Council, even under Qualified Majority Voting, virtually impossible if reliant upon a unanimous agreement).
EU laws are fundamentally tied up with what has been agreed in the EU Treaties, so that, unless the principles and objectives within the current Treaties include beards worn for religious reasons, EU law can only have any bearing if there is Treaty change (and I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be one or two issues that are slightly more pressing just at the moment). Treaty changes do not happen, despite what David Cameron believed, overnight.
I would suggest that it is much less likely that the EU would bring in such a law than you would think, but that, even if it did, such a law would be challenged in both the ECJ and ECHR.
Admittedly, any challenge at the European Court of Human Rights would be via a challenge against the member states rather than the EU itself. But, while the ECJ may only have primacy in relation to EU laws, it is worth noting that it views the European Convention on Human Rights as a guiding principle in its case law, and the European Union is obligated to respect our fundamental rights under the TFEU (Maastricht Treaty), EU institutions and member states are not allowed violate human rights when implementing or acting under EU laws.
Going back to the beardy example, the French demand for secularism in the public sphere is no different from the UK requirement that the Monarch must not be a Catholic. Both laws infringe upon religious freedoms, for a supposedly greater good, but in both nations the legal basis for the rules predate their respective membership of the European institutions and are outside the remit of European law.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equitably but it seems..and again I concede this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive of right of centre politics on other issues.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equatable but it seems..and again I conceded this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive right of centre politics on other issues.
The majority of my posts are either made up of a sarcastic comment aimed at the subject matter as a whole, a sarcastic comment at the excessive use of emotive nonsense when trying to (over)emphasise a point to put people off of posting for fear of them being labelled with all the emotive nonsense that preceded, or it's just an attempt at humour to break the monotony of the tail chasing.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equatable but it seems..and again I conceded this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive right of centre politics on other issues.
The majority of my posts are either made up of a sarcastic comment aimed at the subject matter as a whole, a sarcastic comment at the excessive use of emotive nonsense when trying to (over)emphasise a point to put people off of posting for fear of them being labelled with all the emotive nonsense that preceded, or it's just an attempt at humour to break the monotony of the tail chasing.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
Some on here take themselves far too seriously and need to lighten up.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equatable but it seems..and again I conceded this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive right of centre politics on other issues.
The majority of my posts are either made up of a sarcastic comment aimed at the subject matter as a whole, a sarcastic comment at the excessive use of emotive nonsense when trying to (over)emphasise a point to put people off of posting for fear of them being labelled with all the emotive nonsense that preceded, or it's just an attempt at humour to break the monotony of the tail chasing.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
Some on here take themselves far too seriously and need to lighten up.
For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
You and a few other like minded Brexit voters contribute nothing to the thread other than to constantly express irritation that the thread has not been closed and to mock the members who continue to post on it. As I have stated before, it is a bit like me opening a TV reality show thread and repeatedly laughing at and mocking the regular posters on the thread and urging them to get a life.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
That's not how it works. The EU doesn't take every law for everything region of every member and then magically force that onto every other member. There are literally thousands upon thousands of laws that exist across member states of the EU that aren't part of any EU law.
For that ban to be enforced anywhere else first the French would have to think it such a good idea that it should go into EU law. Then it would have to go before a group of commissioners (selected by each of the member states) who, if they agree it's a great idea, would then draft a law. This would then go to the EU parliment, where there has to be a unanimous vote of all MEPs from every member state.
So for this law to be "forced" upon us, it would require our government appointed commissioner to help draft the law and then all our MEPs to vote for it, and then our government to decline to use their veto. Even then, there is no requirement to incorporate it into our laws word for word. Each state tends to interpret and enforce as they see fit to a certain extent.
This is nothing more than typical anti-EU scaremongering, "what if the EU force some crazy law on us" crap that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
And there is the heart of the oxymoron evident in Farage and his like's position. They both decry the bureaucracy whilst insisting that the EU can just go and force stuff on us.
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equatable but it seems..and again I conceded this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive right of centre politics on other issues.
The majority of my posts are either made up of a sarcastic comment aimed at the subject matter as a whole, a sarcastic comment at the excessive use of emotive nonsense when trying to (over)emphasise a point to put people off of posting for fear of them being labelled with all the emotive nonsense that preceded, or it's just an attempt at humour to break the monotony of the tail chasing.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
Some on here take themselves far too seriously and need to lighten up.
For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
You and a few other like minded Brexit voters contribute nothing to the thread other than to constantly express irritation that the thread has not been closed and to mock the members who continue to post on it. As I have stated before, it is a bit like me opening a TV reality show thread and repeatedly laughing at and mocking the regular posters on the thread and urging them to get a life.
Apart from posting biased links and abusing people, do enlighten me on what your contribution has been. Mine is meant as a joke, i assume yours is too, as you talk absolute crap.
Or, in reality this was one incident in one hospital in one member state.
It went to court and was endorsed as legal - therefore it can now become the norm
Yes, the court's decision means that this can become or, more accurately, remain the norm in France, and only France...
But it is nothing to do with EU membership, and everything to do with the secular nature of the French Republic - many of the leading lights of 19th and 20th Century French politics were inspired by political Freemasonry and determined to limit the influence of the Catholic Church in many aspects of plublicly-funded public life. Secularism in the French Republic is a very strong tradition.
The case relates to a person seeking to work in a French state hospital, and the French state seeking to apply its rules (and the trainee doctor, in this case, agreed that his beard was a sign of his religious affiliation). The same would be the case if an individual sought to work in a French state hospital while displaying conspicuous symbols of Catholic, Protestant or Buddhist religious belief.
The only way that a similar EU law would be brought into being would be if a) it was in keeping with the existing body of EU laws (the Acquis) and b) if there was sufficiently widespread support across the member states and EU Parliament (difficult to imagine in the European Council, even under Qualified Majority Voting, virtually impossible if reliant upon a unanimous agreement).
EU laws are fundamentally tied up with what has been agreed in the EU Treaties, so that, unless the principles and objectives within the current Treaties include beards worn for religious reasons, EU law can only have any bearing if there is Treaty change (and I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be one or two issues that are slightly more pressing just at the moment). Treaty changes do not happen, despite what David Cameron believed, overnight.
I would suggest that it is much less likely that the EU would bring in such a law than you would think, but that, even if it did, such a law would be challenged in both the ECJ and ECHR.
Admittedly, any challenge at the European Court of Human Rights would be via a challenge against the member states rather than the EU itself. But, while the ECJ may only have primacy in relation to EU laws, it is worth noting that it views the European Convention on Human Rights as a guiding principle in its case law, and the European Union is obligated to respect our fundamental rights under the TFEU (Maastricht Treaty), EU institutions and member states are not allowed violate human rights when implementing or acting under EU laws.
Going back to the beardy example, the French demand for secularism in the public sphere is no different from the UK requirement that the Monarch must not be a Catholic. Both laws infringe upon religious freedoms, for a supposedly greater good, but in both nations the legal basis for the rules predate their respective membership of the European institutions and are outside the remit of European law.
Very informative as always @NornIrishAddick , but what if I was to suggest that Brexit is a good idea because we can make our own rule (like France) to get rid of all those bearded religious folk ?
What do you think the response would be on here / in general ?
My guess is - "typical Nazi leave voter"
You may say that UK could make such a law already (under our existing framework), and I guess it could, but my fundamental point is that we are in a community (EU) where parts of it have very different views on "freedom" than folk in the UK do.
What's the point in me having freedom to move to France if I have to shave my beard to get work and the Mrs has to ditch her burka to leave the house ?
Comments
Don't laugh............it could happen.
If the UK remains in the EU 'they' continues to be 'we'.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/01/french-hospital-rejects-trainee-doctor-due-religious-beard/
The question of whether it was right or wrong to ban religious beards for doctors hasn't been mentioned.
A beard ban would never happen as it would upset too many religitards. Not to mention it just being a silly and unworkable ban.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Why not? because I'd hate to be as angry as a lot of people are on this thread. That wouldn't be cool.
What is the point in trying to have a reasoned debate on here when certain posters have regularly called all Brexiters morons, fucktards, racists, bigots and yet nobody on the remain side seems to call them out.
In fact their flags are removed by the mods!
Before the vote the debate was fairly sensible and respectful. Since the vote went against EU supporters the debate went down hill from that moment and hasn't recovered.
Sensible listers have moved on from eu threads. Like a mug I just continue to get drawn back in.
I post occasionally just to let some know that I haven't died yet. Sorry about that and I haven't changed my views just like the vast majority. Despite the best efforts of some.
For that ban to be enforced anywhere else first the French would have to think it such a good idea that it should go into EU law. Then it would have to go before a group of commissioners (selected by each of the member states) who, if they agree it's a great idea, would then draft a law. This would then go to the EU parliment, where there has to be a unanimous vote of all MEPs from every member state.
So for this law to be "forced" upon us, it would require our government appointed commissioner to help draft the law and then all our MEPs to vote for it, and then our government to decline to use their veto. Even then, there is no requirement to incorporate it into our laws word for word. Each state tends to interpret and enforce as they see fit to a certain extent.
This is nothing more than typical anti-EU scaremongering, "what if the EU force some crazy law on us" crap that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
My understanding of French law is that it is based on their Civil Code which doesn't recognise precedent in the same way that our Common Law does so the decision of one court isn't necessarily binding on other courts in the future (probably way more complicated than that but I haven't got time to pillage Wikipedia).
Not every country has the same legal system.
It's like watching a pack of dogs all chasing their own tails.
But it is nothing to do with EU membership, and everything to do with the secular nature of the French Republic - many of the leading lights of 19th and 20th Century French politics were inspired by political Freemasonry and determined to limit the influence of the Catholic Church in many aspects of plublicly-funded public life. Secularism in the French Republic is a very strong tradition.
The case relates to a person seeking to work in a French state hospital, and the French state seeking to apply its rules (and the trainee doctor, in this case, agreed that his beard was a sign of his religious affiliation). The same would be the case if an individual sought to work in a French state hospital while displaying conspicuous symbols of Catholic, Protestant or Buddhist religious belief.
The only way that a similar EU law would be brought into being would be if a) it was in keeping with the existing body of EU laws (the Acquis) and b) if there was sufficiently widespread support across the member states and EU Parliament (difficult to imagine in the European Council, even under Qualified Majority Voting, virtually impossible if reliant upon a unanimous agreement).
EU laws are fundamentally tied up with what has been agreed in the EU Treaties, so that, unless the principles and objectives within the current Treaties include beards worn for religious reasons, EU law can only have any bearing if there is Treaty change (and I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be one or two issues that are slightly more pressing just at the moment). Treaty changes do not happen, despite what David Cameron believed, overnight.
I would suggest that it is much less likely that the EU would bring in such a law than you would think, but that, even if it did, such a law would be challenged in both the ECJ and ECHR.
Admittedly, any challenge at the European Court of Human Rights would be via a challenge against the member states rather than the EU itself. But, while the ECJ may only have primacy in relation to EU laws, it is worth noting that it views the European Convention on Human Rights as a guiding principle in its case law, and the European Union is obligated to respect our fundamental rights under the TFEU (Maastricht Treaty), EU institutions and member states are not allowed violate human rights when implementing or acting under EU laws.
Going back to the beardy example, the French demand for secularism in the public sphere is no different from the UK requirement that the Monarch must not be a Catholic. Both laws infringe upon religious freedoms, for a supposedly greater good, but in both nations the legal basis for the rules predate their respective membership of the European institutions and are outside the remit of European law.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equitably but it seems..and again I concede this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive of right of centre politics on other issues.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
You and a few other like minded Brexit voters contribute nothing to the thread other than to constantly express irritation that the thread has not been closed and to mock the members who continue to post on it. As I have stated before, it is a bit like me opening a TV reality show thread and repeatedly laughing at and mocking the regular posters on the thread and urging them to get a life.
What do you think the response would be on here / in general ?
My guess is - "typical Nazi leave voter"
You may say that UK could make such a law already (under our existing framework), and I guess it could, but my fundamental point is that we are in a community (EU) where parts of it have very different views on "freedom" than folk in the UK do.
What's the point in me having freedom to move to France if I have to shave my beard to get work and the Mrs has to ditch her burka to leave the house ?