Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
fatshaft

So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Were the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales manipulated into accepting Westminster as being a superior authority outside of their own countries?  Do those countries not have a right to a "sovereign" Government and not to be ruled by a "foreign" power?

I can understand that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for a lot longer than the EU.  I can even understand the argument that we are "stronger together" but I still find it contradictory that many in favour of leaving the EU also believe in maintaining the United Kingdom and rule from Westminster.  Surely if you are in favour of self-governance and independent nations then Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England should be separate countries in their own right and not governed from a central seat of power?  

I sometimes wonder if the EU was based in London rather than Brussels if the UK population would feel differently towards the EU.... 

The constituent parts of the UK do have a right to be independent subject to demand and a referendum. Scotland has had an indecisive go. Ireland made a choice generations ago the matter still presenting an inconclusive settlement thus far. Wales has not shown sufficient pressure to leave the UK. England likewise has not demonstrated sufficient demand although elected regional assemblies once proposed were rejected. Devolution was introduced as a sop in the face of demands for more local autonomy. Clearly there is an acknowledgement that the UK can no longer be governed from a central seat of power. That is why it is no longer governed from a central seat of power to the same extent as before. Police Scotland I believe no longer requires officers to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, P.K. said:

They've actually been rising steadily since the financial crash of 2008.

Just like the UK gig economy.....

By far the majority of new jobs created are full time on permanent contracts. You listen to too much Momentum inspired black propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

The ECJ doesn’t issue directives. The EU civil service (The European Commission - appointments are made by the political leaders; the Council, and ratified by the Parliament).  drafts directives. The purpose of directives is to ensure that the Single Market works. For example, if you allow each state to decide if they want the ships that use their ports to be insured or not then you can predict that one country would offer an advantage to unscrupulous shipping companies by not requiring that ships entering it’s ports be insured. One by one, other countries would follow suite and then one day you would find you had thousands of uninsured ships in EU ports. As a member of the EU the U.K. doesn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured. As an ‘independent’ country the U.K. wouldn’t have the ‘sovereignty’ to choose if ships entering U.K. waters are insured because that would be just one of the endless details to be discussed in every single trade negotiation - and whatever you’ve been snorting you should understand there’s no chance in hell that the U.K. would be granted exceptions over such matters by any of the big markets. 

The draft directives then go to the Parliament (those people elected the other week), and then to the Council (political leaders - so, in the UK’s case, whichever power-hungry Tory can convincingly promise the best chances of career advancement to the most fellow Tory MPs). The wording of national legislation is left up to individual countries so they can tailor the rules to suit (so Ireland, for example, exempts tampons from tax, but the U.K. doesn’t). 

Then the right-wing U.K. press write complete bullshit about what was agreed. 

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

In the event of a dispute over the fair implementation of a directive or regulation of the Single Market then the ultimate court of arbitration for the EU is the ECJ. 

The U.K. itself has only ever been involved in two actions at the ECJ: 

  • France v. United Kingdom (case C-141/78), judgement of 14.10.1979 on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission
  • Spain v. UK (case C-145/04), judgement of 12.09.2006 on Commonwealth voting rights in Gibraltar, no infringement

If you have any specific cases of where you think the ECJ has in anyway acted against your interests, or the interests of the U.K., or the U.K,’s sovereignty, could you give us, as ever, just one example to look at? 

So the effect of this is what? You think that the UK is going to choose to abandon insurance for shipping in its waters? Why would it do such a thing? But in any case, it matters not how these things work or in what detail you delve. The principle being fought for is that they are decided at national level and agreed in negotiation has as happened since time immemorial as opposed to being imposed on a supranational level by a remote oligarchy. It's easy enough to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Barrie Stevens said:

 Police Scotland I believe no longer requires officers to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen..

They never have done, well certainly not in living memory. Nowt to do with devolution anyhow.

Edited by woolley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

Were the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales manipulated into accepting Westminster as being a superior authority outside of their own countries?  Do those countries not have a right to a "sovereign" Government and not to be ruled by a "foreign" power?

I can understand that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for a lot longer than the EU.  I can even understand the argument that we are "stronger together" but I still find it contradictory that many in favour of leaving the EU also believe in maintaining the United Kingdom and rule from Westminster.  Surely if you are in favour of self-governance and independent nations then Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England should be separate countries in their own right and not governed from a central seat of power?  

I sometimes wonder if the EU was based in London rather than Brussels if the UK population would feel differently towards the EU.... 

The people of the British Isles are much more of a coherent unit having largely interbred for a thousand years. We have far more that joins us than divides us. I'm English but I have Irish and Scottish blood. Similar mixes are the norm. The EU in contrast sprawls across a continent of diverse cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, woolley said:

 Four years minimum to train a nurse is part of what's wrong with the system and the more on the job training the better. Interesting that you believe that it is more acceptable to bring people from elsewhere to do shitty hours for shitty wages than to reform the system.

 

21 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

 Strawman.

You've always been fond of the strawman riposte but I sometimes wonder if you know what it means. It certainly isn't appropriate here. The conditions are the direct and inevitable consequence of the policy you support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, woolley said:

The people of the British Isles are much more of a coherent unit having largely interbred for a thousand years. We have far more that joins us than divides us. I'm English but I have Irish and Scottish blood. Similar mixes are the norm. The EU in contrast sprawls across a continent of diverse cultures.

And yet that precious British DNA has been mixed with Viking, Roman, Norman, Celtic and Saxon and a whole host of other cultures intertwined.  We may live on a group of Islands but we are not that far removed from our European  neighbour's.

Your argument is only valid over a limited historical period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

And yet that precious British DNA has been mixed with Viking, Roman, Norman, Celtic and Saxon and a whole host of other cultures intertwined.  We may live on a group of Islands but we are not that far removed from our European  neighbour's.

Your argument is only valid over a limited historical period.

Which perfectly proves my point. All of those promoting well over a thousand years of homogeneity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, woolley said:

Which perfectly proves my point. All of those promoting well over a thousand years of homogeneity.

So you would also agree that you have a shared history with France, Germany and Scandinavian countries based on that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, manxman1980 said:

So you would also agree that you have a shared history with France, Germany and Scandinavian countries based on that...

No. Because as evolution proves, once isolated the characteristics change and adapt in different directions. In our case we emerged with a distinct British identity having a shared experience of life in our islands. As I said, well over a thousand years of almost total homogeneity with only minor exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, woolley said:

No. Because as evolution proves, once isolated the characteristics change and adapt in different directions. In our case we emerged with a distinct British identity having a shared experience of life in our islands. As I said, well over a thousand years of almost total homogeneity with only minor exceptions.

When did that distinct British identity emerge?  1066? 1415? 1485? 1603? 1945? 1966?  Life on these islands has always involved invasions, immigration and emigration and if you want to go along the genetic route I could point out to the ancestors of all human life and say that this plus the other factors I have just mentioned trumps your argument that Britain is somehow isolated from other genetic influences.

Today we have plenty of people born in the UK to mixed race parents, or to British and Polish, British and French parents etc etc.  Boris Johnson even has Turkish ancestry and yet is busy trumpeting what it means to be British.

We share plenty of things in common with our European neighbours, including much of our supposedly British culture and language.  Fish and Chips?  Created in 1860 in London by a Jewish immigrant.  How many words in English originate from French & German? Restaurant, Cafe, Abseil, Doppelganger.. 

Your argument is straying dangerously close to eugenics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

People manipulated into feeling this way are the problem. It's kind of juvenile in outlook. How do you account for feeling such a curious  preference?

Juvenile? maybe but perhaps life's experiences have yet to make you think otherwise.

Using a local example (just for illustration purposes) let's say you are a professional employed by the gov. and you have to take them to task on a false disciplinary procedure.

When all the normal channels have been explored, the final arbiter is our AG who is employed by your employer with whom you have fallen out. If you think his decision is sub optimal where do you then take your grievance? Yeah nowhere.....  That "little restriction" will apply to the UK too after Hop Tu Naa....

A scenario that's never happened to you? Long may that continue but until then, less of the pejoratives if you don't mind.

Edited by ballaughbiker
grammar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

When did that distinct British identity emerge?  1066? 1415? 1485? 1603? 1945? 1966?  Life on these islands has always involved invasions, immigration and emigration and if you want to go along the genetic route I could point out to the ancestors of all human life and say that this plus the other factors I have just mentioned trumps your argument that Britain is somehow isolated from other genetic influences.

Today we have plenty of people born in the UK to mixed race parents, or to British and Polish, British and French parents etc etc.  Boris Johnson even has Turkish ancestry and yet is busy trumpeting what it means to be British.

We share plenty of things in common with our European neighbours, including much of our supposedly British culture and language.  Fish and Chips?  Created in 1860 in London by a Jewish immigrant.  How many words in English originate from French & German? Restaurant, Cafe, Abseil, Doppelganger.. 

Your argument is straying dangerously close to eugenics. 

No it isn't. We aren't talking about selective breeding. We are discussing the history of the distinct British identity and how it has developed over more than a millennium. Yes, it is partly insular but it is also that of a maritime trading nation. You are missing the point by questioning 1066, 1415 etc. It's all of those. Are you saying that it means nothing to be British?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, woolley said:

So the effect of this is what? You think that the UK is going to choose to abandon insurance for shipping in its waters? Why would it do such a thing? But in any case, it matters not how these things work or in what detail you delve. The principle being fought for is that they are decided at national level and agreed in negotiation has as happened since time immemorial as opposed to being imposed on a supranational level by a remote oligarchy. It's easy enough to understand.

You didn’t understand my post. My point is that the rules of the Single Market differ very little from the rules agreed on in any bilateral trade agreement, so if the U.K. wants to engage in trade it has to abide by trade treaties. The choice is whether it wants to be on the inside helping to make the rules, or on the outside being dictated to by bigger markets. Oh, but yeah, but if you actually think the U.K. would be ‘taking back control’ of the terms of trade by leaving the organisation that makes them and dictating the rules to the big boys all by itself, then yeah, I can see where you’re coming from; cloud cuckoo land. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, woolley said:

I sometimes wonder if you know what it means. 

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. 

You attempted to attribute a statement or position to me that I did not present myself, and then used that to attempt to refute the actual statement I made.

Box in your box granddad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...