The Trade without the Oppression (a very important read before you vote)

[mercuryg]

47 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Christopher Doyle said ...

 

 

Now, I don't think that's 'stupid,' as has been said, or implied, in the posts that followed it.

Christopher was talking mainly about UK elections, where it really doesn't matter a damn who you vote for, they're all the bloody same. Remember, the 1% are where they are only because the 99% VOTE FOR THE B@st@RDS! The only way the 99% can show their true feelings is to not cast ANY votes at all. However, this will never happen because of all the weak-willed folk who think a vote for 'X' is better than a vote for 'Y.'

I disagree; a vote for x is better than a vote for y (or vice-versa) when compared to not bothering because you believe your vote means nothing. Why do you think the turnout figures at elections are so poor? Let's say 30% of people don't bother to vote. That's 30 out of every 100 people. What a difference it could make if that 30% actually paid attention, and voted one way or the other even for just a minor, one-off point that they thought may benefit them! There's nothing weak-willed in voting, ever. I'd venture the opposite. Get out and vote tomorrow. 

[threegee]

1 hour ago, Canny lass said:

That would be all journalists, in my opinion. Journalism is biased towards the  political stance and economic status of the publication. Left-wing orientated publications select the facts to be published to suit left-wing readers. Right-wing publications select facts to suit the right-wing reader. That's why we always have different accounts of the same thing. Daily nationals use a language which is more formal, has longer words and a more complex sentence structure to appeal to the target group of readers. Tabloids, on the other hand use a language which resembles the spoken word,uses shorter words and a more simple sentence construction. BOTH manipulate syntax to make the reader believe what they want us to believe.

And of course academics with huge vested interests in maintaining their generous funding don't?  After all they are academics (like me?) and not horribly biased journalists.  I detect a bit of snobbery in there re. mass circulation papers too.  Just because they present as they do doesn't mean that what they have to say is any less valid.

Actually I think you'll find that right wing publications (like the Spectator) go out of their way to employ left wing journalists to fertilise their offering with challenging ideas (and don't censor their on-line comments).  The reverse certainly isn't the case, as anyone with challenging ideas posting on the Guardian website can testify.  So, the popular conception of a mirrored dichotomy between left and right is well clear of reality.

[threegee]

12 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

I disagree; a vote for x is better than a vote for y (or vice-versa) when compared to not bothering because you believe your vote means nothing. Why do you think the turnout figures at elections are so poor? Let's say 30% of people don't bother to vote. That's 30 out of every 100 people. What a difference it could make if that 30% actually paid attention, and voted one way or the other even for just a minor, one-off point that they thought may benefit them! There's nothing weak-willed in voting, ever. I'd venture the opposite. Get out and vote tomorrow. 

This is very true.  I'd only add that voters must be allowed to make mistakes then correct them at the earliest practical opportunity.  That's why Cameron's stance on this referendum is so damnable.  Douglas Carswells' right of recall bill should become law, but there is huge vested interest amongst our elites who won't countenance any such proposal.  The public needs to wake up to this opportunity to extend our democracy, and demand that this is enacted.

[Canny lass]

11 minutes ago, threegee said:

And of course academics with huge vested interests in maintaining their generous funding don't?  After all they are academics (like me?) and not horribly biased journalists.  I detect a bit of snobbery in there re. mass circulation papers too.  Just because they present as they do doesn't mean that what they have to say is any less valid.

Actually I think you'll find that right wing publications (like the Spectator) go out of their way to employ left wing journalists to fertilise their offering with challenging ideas (and don't censor their on-line comments).  The reverse certainly isn't the case, as anyone with challenging ideas posting on the Guardian website can testify.  So, the popular conception of a mirrored dichotomy between left and right is well clear of reality.

I always thought that funding went into the university not the pocket of the professor,

I have no idea whether or not you are an academic.I know that you appear to be well educated when it comes to computers but everything is relative. As I know nothing about them I would probably be impressed by the knowledge of a 10 year-old with a basic interest in the subject. Does your education really have a place in this discussion?

"Just because they present as they do doesn't mean that what they say is any less valid". No it does not. Equally it does not say that it is valid at all. What it does say is that if two newspapers report the same story giving contradictory 'facts', then one of them must be lying or at very least angling the facts.

I don't believe that 'fertilizing' their offerings is restricted to any one political persuasion, unfortunately.

The "popular conception of a mirrored dichotomy between left and right is well clear of reality". That's not what research is saying.

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, mercuryg said:

I disagree; a vote for x is better than a vote for y (or vice-versa) when compared to not bothering because you believe your vote means nothing. Why do you think the turnout figures at elections are so poor? Let's say 30% of people don't bother to vote. That's 30 out of every 100 people. What a difference it could make if that 30% actually paid attention, and voted one way or the other even for just a minor, one-off point that they thought may benefit them! There's nothing weak-willed in voting, ever. I'd venture the opposite. Get out and vote tomorrow. 

Yes, but what if you've no confidence in any Party? Do you just put your mark against the one that least offends you, even though it grieves you to give them a vote, or do you show your distaste by not voting for anyone?

Every ballot paper should have a box marked 'No confidence in any of the above, please supply another list of candidates!

[Canny lass]

26 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Every ballot paper should have a box marked 'No confidence in any of the above, please supply another list of candidates!

That's not a bad idea, but even no-votes are counted and they do say something about what you, the voter, feels.

[webtrekker]

Here's another idea, courtesy of a forward-thinking bloke named Jim Bell, particularly relevant in these times of BitCoin and the enthusiasm for CrowdSourcing... 

'Assassination Politics'

https://cryptome.org/ap.htm

It's got my vote! 

[Canny lass]

It looks interesting but it'll have to wait until Saturday. Fully occupied here at the minute and on Friday it's Midsummer Eve - Biggest holiday in the Swedish calender. But I promise I'll get round to it.

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

And now the end is nigh...................... has old blue eyes threegee convinced you?

Take a pinch of Gove man                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Wrap it up in Osborne                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Add a touch of Johnson                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 And a little bitty bit of blue Cameron boy

Curly Corben kinkies                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Mixed with liberal orange policies                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    If you lump it all together                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Well, you got a recipe for a get along scene                                                                                                                                                                                                                Oh, Oh what a beautiful dream                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       If it could only come true, you know, you know

What we need is a great big melting pot

Big enough to take the EU and all it's got

And keep it stirring for threegee years or more

And turn out confused coloured people by the score

 

I Remain yours, truly

Eggy

[Christopher Doyle]

12 hours ago, Eggy1948 said:

However one point of Chris D's I disagree with is the one of not voting. We may feel that, it makes no difference or we don't understand or what does it matter but it's there to use and in my opinion if you don't use your vote then don't complain.

What?

Is this seriously your opinion?

You really think you should vote blindly, without understanding any facts, lead on by fiction and propaganda, for something you understand nothing about, rather than accepting you don't understand what the hell is going on and staying out of the whole thing?

This kind of thinking is what scares me most about the whole deal...

Having the choice of a beheading or a mutilation, dressed up in fictitious facts and unfounded claims all there to trick you into a false sense of security, believing you know what you are actually voting for...

..when either choice is still a messed up version of a reality that only serves to feed the rich and those in the know, and leave us normal people with a raw deal and made to be thankful for it.

 

Tell me this:
If I was to turn around to you now and say "Right. Now. From my house, I now own everything, and you need to pay me 20% of anything you grow, trade or earn." Would you let me do that?

 

Strange... its what we do Every. Damn. Day.
And we're happy about it.

We don't have the information to understand what goes on in this country. They make sure we don't have it, and when we ask for it they confuse us with false facts and lies to cover what they are doing.
And why shouldn't they? everyone in business does what they do to get the most out of their time. That's business. And this whole mess is just one big business.
Every member of parliament goes into the job saying they will change things, and most never do. Because they see it can't be done.
They stagnate trying to get through the red tape each member before them has put in place to make in impossible to change the true cause of the problem.
Then, after all is said and done, they want us to vote remain (or those looking into their own future do) so when they retire, they can follow the footsteps of Blair the rest of the previous prime ministers, and get a job in the EU paying much more than they got in office.

Every piece of information we receive from anyone of standing is their opinion on how they can make the most money from the result. And frankly, anyone who thinks differently, in my eyes, is being blinded by their wool, and falling directly into their trap.

Vote remain? great. this group of people get richer.
Vote leave? Awesome, the other group get richer.

For us in the working class and below, it won't make a blind bit of difference what we choose. Hell, we don't even understand the choice we've been asked to make.

It's as simple as that, or as complex as you want to make it.

[mercuryg]

12 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Yes, but what if you've no confidence in any Party? Do you just put your mark against the one that least offends you, even though it grieves you to give them a vote, or do you show your distaste by not voting for anyone?

Every ballot paper should have a box marked 'No confidence in any of the above, please supply another list of candidates!

I believe in Australia, where you are obliged to vote, there is an option to abstain.

[mercuryg]

Chris, if you know nothing about it, learn. It's quite simple.

[webtrekker]

Well, it'll soon be over, one way or another, then the country can get down to more serious matters, such as The Donald's visit tomorrow!

[webtrekker]

Here's another very important read before you vote .....................

 

 

Quote

 

EU to start fresh Turkey accession talks within few days

The European Union is scheduled to open a new round of negotiations over Turkey’s accession to the 28-member politico-economic bloc within the next few days.

An EU diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Wednesday that EU member states will sit together on June 30 to reach a consensus on opening a new negotiating chapter with Turkey on finance and budget affairs.

European Union leaders pledged in March to speed up Turkey’s EU membership process in exchange for help on the refugee crisis.

On March 18, an agreement was clinched in Brussels between then Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and the EU to curb the huge flow of asylum seekers and refugees heading to Europe.

Under the agreement, Turkey has accepted a series of measures aimed at curbing the inflow of refugees from the country to Greece in return for some benefits, including billions of dollars in aid, visa-free travel for Turks to Europe and, more significant than all, acceleration in the EU’s processing of Turkey’s long-awaited bid for membership in the continental body.

Critics say Ankara is using the EU refugee crisis as a platform not only to get money but also to make a fresh push on talks over Turkey's membership in the EU and visa-free travel for Turks to Europe's Schengen zone.

The EU lawmakers have in return said that they would hold Turkey to EU press freedom and other standards in the accession talks.

Ankara's accession has become a hot-button issue in the run-up to Thursday's Brexit referendum, especially as supporters of the “Leave” camp argue that the membership will open the doors for millions of Turks to enter Britain.

Even though British Prime Minister David Cameron's official position is to back Ankara's membership, he says it will take years for Turkey to join the EU.

Turkey, which straddles Asia and Europe, entered formal membership talks with the EU in 2005, but the bloc has opened 15 chapters out of the 35 required for Ankara’s accession. Only one chapter has been completed so far.

 

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/06/22/471666/EU-Turkey-accession

[Christopher Doyle]

5 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Chris, if you know nothing about it, learn. It's quite simple.

How can you learn about something when all the information out there is half truths and information geared towards covering up whats really going on?

The only way to do that is to get involved and become a politician. Dive into the muddy waters and feel around for yourself. 
You certainly can't rely on any of the public press you see about it all.

And frankly, I don't care enough to get that far involved.
If I did this for every argument I got involved in I'd have about 600 jobs!

These people chose this career path, and are making a job of it.
Just like I disagree with the waiting times and quality of a McDonnalds restaurant, I'm certainly not going to get a job there to change it.
I don't like the fact I can be put in jail for breaking a law I probably never heard of, or had any realistic way of knowing about. I'm certainly not studying law though.

Therefore you have to have your own opinion, and get on with your life. You choose your own level of involvement, as you can't be everywhere and change everything.
Since everything I read or have been told (after I decide what I think is truth and lies) points towards it changing nothing for me or my family and friends, I choose not to vote.

Again, because I don't understand what it is I'm deciding. and frankly, neither do 90% ^{(Statistic needs verification)} of the people out there with a pencil in their hand.

[moe19]

Chilcot is due out 6th July, that will  be a good day for them to sneak out  a few embarrassing EU snippets while we are all preoccupied  with the whitewash 

[webtrekker]

Well .................My vote to Leave is in!

Forget about all the hype. My decision was based solely on the fact that the Bankers, the Big Corporations, the current Government, Obama, and the EU itself all wanted us to Remain. That was more than enough push for me to vote LEAVE!

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

11 hours ago, Christopher Doyle said:

What?

You really think you should vote blindly, without understanding any facts, lead on by fiction and propaganda, for something you understand nothing about, rather than accepting you don't understand what the hell is going on and staying out of the whole thing?
 

Oh to be back in a pub on a Friday (or any night really), having a couple of pints, with Bedlington friends, and being able to see the faces and expressions of the people you are discussing current events with. For me you can learn more about a person in an evening over a pint than you can attempting to interpret the true meaning of that persons written words on social media sites. Putting to right, depending on how many pints one has consumed, the country; the world, and even more importantly explaining how, if you were manager, you would guide NUFC to success  - one day Malcolm, it will happen. One might even be tempted to partake in some unhealthy food that leaves you, and your clothes, smelling of that aroma, blended majestically with the beer so that when you arrive home your partner finds you irresistible and you are forced to make passionate love for hours then drift off into a sound and rewarding sleep knowing that in one evening you have accomplished more than the government have managed in their term of office and when you awake in the morning the one thing you are certain of - next Friday you will do the same again!

 I will try and explain, without the aid of alcohol, what I mean :-

I vote in General Elections, local government elections and referendums.

Do I fully understand what the party mandate I am voting for, or the consequences of my vote will have?

Simple answer = No but I am entitled to vote and, like (in my opinion) the majority of the electorate (in my opinion) I understand basic economics but do not have any in depth knowledge that would enable me to categorically say a policy is right or wrong, I will use that vote.

Am I totally blind to what the hell is going on? No

Is every, or even any, speech you here by a politician, or Mayor or local government officer etc. etc. the truth or is it a prepared speech to say the right things?

Would we prefer it if every time a speech was made it was 'Doom & Gloom' or do we prefer them to be positive?

Do we have to listen to them?

When a party political broadcast comes on after the evening news do we have to listen to them?

The list could go on, and on and on. If only I had done a Foxy and stayed out of it.

 

I am now imagining the taste of that pint of Sharps Doom Bar as I pause to refresh the pallet - even typing the words makes me thirsty.

I Remain, even though I don't full understand, yours sincerely

Eggy

ps. and I won't Submit Reply and then go back and check and edit. But happy to be put right if we ever meet over a pint.  

 

 

[Christopher Doyle]

Discussing these things over drinks is my idea of a terrible night out, but I do accept that, Like I, You have an opinion you are entitled to.

I also accept you can do whatever you like with that opinion. Even if I disagree.

We are all here to live our lives the way we please. Thank you for not only listening to my opinion, but also letting me know yours.

[moe19]

Cars are submerged and some polling stations are closing as flooding affects London and the South East., I can hear them shouting already for an extension to the poll for those who were flooded, 

Depending on the result of course

[webtrekker]

2 hours ago, moe19 said:

Cars are submerged and some polling stations are closing as flooding affects London and the South East., I can hear them shouting already for an extension to the poll for those who were flooded, 

Depending on the result of course

Yeah, and look out for the earthquakes, plagues, famine and pestilence if the floods don't do the trick!

 

 

[Canny lass]

On 2016-06-22 at 14:27, threegee said:

If ANY of the detailed argument I have presented above against Dugan's position are fallacious then please argue your case

Well, you did ask!

First let me say that we do not know where this lecture takes place. I know nothing of your academic background but from my own I can see that the lecture follows the accepted academic protocol of:

·         Brief presentation of oneself related to field of academic studies

·         Outline the framework of the lecture

·         Give the lecture

·         Summarize the salient points of the lecture

·         Thanks to participants

·         Invitation to question

·         Questions

Should the speaker be a guest in another institution the preceding protocol is amended slightly to include:

·         An introduction of the speaker by the chair (before the speaker presents himself)

·         Thanks from the chair (to guest speakers, after the speakers thanks to participants)

·         Invitation to question -  from the chair

·         Questions

I can, therefore, make an educated guess that the speaker is not in his own university and that he is a guest speaker in some other institution. This I can do because there has clearly been an introduction.  We hear Dougan thank the chair in his opening remarks:  “Thanks very much Dana for the introduction”. (00.07) We at no point hear this introduction but it appears to have occurred.  

This information will have some bearing on the following discussion. Having said that, I now propose to go, as requested, through those statements which I find to be fallacious.

Statement 1:

You say:

“He’s […] lecturing to an obviously receptive audience where no questioning is permitted”

Let us first discuss the receptivity of the audience.

From the visual and auditory evidence available in this video, we cannot even determine the presence of an audience. Therefore we cannot possibly judge the receptivity of the audience.  We do not see an audience. We hear applause at the end of the lecture (24.33) but we cannot with certainty claim that it is real applause or where it comes from. We do not know where this video recording was made. It may, for all we know have been made in a studio with a few props and the addition of handclapping as an audio-effect. We simply do not know anything about the audience. Therefore your statement as to its receptivity is totally fallacious.

Moving on to “no questioning is permitted.  Again, we do not see any questioning and we do not hear any questioning. The lack of visual and auditory evidence does not, however, demonstrate that questioning was not permitted. There is strong evidence to suggest that questions were permitted, assuming of course that there was a live audience.

Referring to his not going into the details of, for example, immigration and the impact of leaving on the higher education sector, Dougan clearly states “they might well come up in questions, but if they don’t do feel free to contact me by e-mail, or just arrange to meet up”. (24.16) That we do not see or hear questions, is not evidence that questions were not permitted.  

‘Questions’ is an integral part of any formal academic lecture. An academic lecture is usually one hour minus the usual ‘academic quarter’ which tradition most often demands. This leaves 45 minutes to give the lecture – including questions. I can, therefore deduce, allowing a generous 5 minutes for thanks from the chair and invitation to question, that approximately 15 minutes was available for just questions. Whether or not there were any questions asked, we do not know. The video recording did not continue past the end of the professor’s talk. All we can say with certainty is that questions were permitted. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious.

 

[Canny lass]

Statement 2:

In relation to the figure of 2 million UK citizens in the EU you say:

 “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high”

“The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing”

Also of interest is your statement:

“I prefer to believe the properly audited UN figure rather than the UK government one”

First, let’s look at the question of the figures related to UK citizens in the EU.

 According to the UN Population Division (I believe the same source used by yourself) there are indeed 1.2 million British people living in the EU and they do say that this figure contrasts with the government’s preference for using the larger figure of two million, the figure used by Dougan.  They also say that the discrepancy “may result from different approaches being used to count those who spend only part of their time in the EU”. This you forgot to mention.

What about the worker/pensioner ratio?  According to the same source, data on the total number of British working in EU countries is unavailable since many countries do not collect this. However, using DWP pensions as a measuring stick, and knowing that “there are around 400,000 pensioners in receipt of DWP pension living in Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, the Netherlands and Germany”, the UN has, by deducting those 400,000 pensioners from the said 1.2 million been able to calculate that around 800,000 are workers and their dependents. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354).

So much for the figures.  Are we comparing the same two groups of people here? The UN is counting workers and pensioners. What is Dougan counting? Let’s have a look at what he says:

“What do we do with the 2 million or so UK nationals currently living, working, studying in the rest of the EU?” Professor Dougan, unlike the UN, includes students in his group. So, effectively we are comparing two different groups.  Of course, even I do not believe there are 800,000 students from Britain studying in the EU but never the less given that the number and compositions of the groups differ, I must ask why they are being compared at all.

And then there is the question of the “lie”. Do UK citizens work in the EU? Has Dougan said that the majority work? Is it correct that “the vast majority are retired? The answers are simple. Yes, UK citizens work in the EU.  Both UN and Dougan have said so. The UN has even given a “properly audited” figure of 800,000 workers and their dependents, so clearly it must be true. Is it correct as you claim, that the “vast majority are retired”? Not according to the “properly audited” figures released by the UN and cited above..

Therefore, your statement that “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high” is totally fallacious. Even the UN do not agree with you. Equally, your statement “The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing”is also totally fallacious.

[Canny lass]

Statement 3:

You say:

“Our government will resume the right to deport miscreants on its own terms”.

“The future though is that either the RoI will at some point leave the EU as it economically disintegrates”

We cannot see into the future. We do not know what “will” happen. With any eventual Brexit we must wait to see what is negotiated. Maybe, just maybe, it might be a condition of Brexit that we cannot deport anyone. We do not know what will be resumed of the old system or the old rights? We can only ‘speculate’ on what ‘may’ happen. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious.

As Previously said, what will happen in the “future” is not known to anyone. We can only speculate on what might happen in the future. A statement such as the above, beginning “The future though is” has no credibility as opposed to a more accurate ‘The future though may be’. We cannot with certainty know what will happen in the future, therefore your statement is totally fallacious. The same argument is valid for economic disintegration of the EU. It hasn’t occurred yet and may never occur. We do not know.

 

To be continued after the Midsummer holiday.

Till then may I wish you all EN RIKTIGT TREVLIG MIDSOMMARAFTON! May all your EU dreams come true.

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

On 6/23/2016 at 21:29, Canny lass said:

 

To be continued after the Midsummer holiday.

Till then may I wish you all EN RIKTIGT TREVLIG MIDSOMMARAFTON! May all your EU dreams come true.

May the copious amounts of food and drink you have consumed outside (due to the three degree rise in your body temperature temperature) for this Midsummer event have have freed your head of all your little frogs whilst you worship the sun hopping around the phallic maypole with flowers in your hair.