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

[Canny lass]

On 2016-06-23 at 09:51, webtrekker said:

EU to start fresh Turkey accession talks within few days

Could this threaten my Christmas dinner?

[Canny lass]

19 hours ago, Eggy1948 said:

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.

When in Rome ..., as the saying goes. There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. Like the residents of my host country I am prepared for all eventualities. The weather can throw at me what it likes. It's so predictable I'm very rarely caught out anyway. Three degrees is a mere nothing! 

As for the maypole, the men sometimes have difficulties getting it up.

[moe19]

Thats one hell of a size arrow, who is going to pull the bow   no pun intended   

[Vic Patterson]

"There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing" I like that saying, very appropriate for this part of the world.

Snow shoes in the morning, shorts in the afternoon and Mac and wellies in the evening.

[Canny lass]

Sounds a bit like here, Vic!

[Canny lass]

Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3

Statement 4:

You say:

“you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.”

“If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)”

You also say:

“There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”

UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014.

Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £16 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income.

(http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation)

Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £16 million.

This is does not support your statement that  Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious.

(As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in).

You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark.

However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document.

Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

Something odd has happened to the numbers. All appear as £16 million.

Here is the above text with the correct figures:

Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3

Statement 4:

You say:

“you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.”

“If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)”

You also say:

“There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”

UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014.

Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £384 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income.

(http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation)

Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £2 million.

This is does not support your statement that  Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious.

(As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in).

You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark.

However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document.

Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

[threegee]

Sorry not enough hours in the day to answer all your syntactic nitpicking.  I stand by the basics of everything I've said.  You're up to your usual tricks of ignoring the principal point (and essentially about 90% of my post) - my answers to Dougan's questions were namely:

a) As a law professor he should know the answer to his own question: the answer is the Vienna Convention says that precisely nothing must happen to either.

b ) Again, the answer is nothing.

There are several fundamental errors in your train of thought regarding the working Brits in the EU figures.  It starts by transposing my statement that "the vast majority are retired" into the supposition that I'm talking only about pensioners.  Then you transpose that to meaning state pensions, then make the further unjustified logical leap into assuming that the pensions sent directly overseas by DWP equals the total number. My "retirees" would in fact include anyone who is not holding down a state recognised job, and so include people who may simply be bumming a living from family and friends in a nice climate - of which I'm personally aware of an odd few.  The principal of GIGO now has a good hold here, so for you to go on and compute people legitimately employed in EU jobs by differencing becomes risible.  No, you have not proved my statement wrong, and it's well on the periphery of what I said, and barely relevant to the principal answer even if this were to be the case.

Sad that you acknowledge that he has grossly inflated the figure, and that in fact my off the top of head recollection UN figure is still slightly too high, but give me no credit at all for that, whilst trying to make excuses for a highly-paid professional and "government adviser" who should be in full possession of the facts, and also provide some faint provenance for his overblown statistics.

When I said "The future though is" it was an expression of personal opinion, and an educated guess. I am allowed to have an opinion, without that right being attacked. 

No, I did not mean millions, the "responsible for disbursing" boast was clearly quoted as billions.  If "£579 millions of direct funding" isn't "much of its funding" then the reader can decide for themselves if I over-egged the statement.

I've no interest in university funding as such, and the statemented that you quote  “If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)” is regarding general EU funding, and true!

Now that we are exiting the EU we have the perfect opportunity to assess just how much of what Dougan was saying was pure UK government/EU propaganda. He didn't expect that!

[Canny lass]

6 hours ago, threegee said:

You're up to your usual tricks of ignoring the principal point (and essentially about 90% of my post)

I haven't fineshed yet.

[Canny lass]

6 hours ago, threegee said:

 

Sorry not enough hours in the day to answer all your syntactic nitpicking.

 

As yet, I have not taken up the syntactic arguments, but there are many, I am presenting the arguments which you requested. Not having time for them suggests to me that you are looking for an excuse to avoid defending your own 'arguments' against mine.

[threegee]

2 hours ago, Canny lass said:

As yet, I have not taken up the syntactic arguments, but there are many, I am presenting the arguments which you requested. Not having time for them suggests to me that you are looking for an excuse to avoid defending your own 'arguments' against mine.

My argument was that Dougan is highly influenced by EU money, and also the civil service position - his other paymasters.  Your argument is that he's a disinterested academic, which he most certainty is not!  You position generally is that all Journalists "need to sell newspapers", and so practically anything they say is not to be believed, whereas academics in no way suffer from funding bias.

Due to recent events all you NOW need to do is to browse the university websites to see how such a partisan view is highly blinkered.  Academics have now gone into overdrive as to how they are going to replace EU funding to maintain their empires.  They have ever lost sight of the fact that the teat they feed on is ALL originally UK food processed through an inefficient Brussels system in a way that maximises their dependence on surrogate mother EU.  I'm tempted to say that if a reborn UK won't readily come up with funds for their research, perhaps they should consider the possibility of getting a real job!  But I won't, because I'm not enough of a philistine as to claim that all academic research doesn't perform a useful social purpose - just a fair bit of it!  In any event I think UK politicos are a bit better placed to decide on such matters than a remote peripatetic bureaucracy that often needs a cohort of translators just to understand each other.

If even a bit of what Dougan claimed is true then he's now in hog heaven, because his specific "services" will be in demand by government for a good while hence. Then, maybe - as you indicated - he can simply move to the EU, and so relieve the UK taxpayer of his support burden - hoorah, and the best of luck to him!  As I say, time will now illustrate exactly how seriously his lecture needed to be taken, so there's no need to speculate.

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

My argument was that Dougan is highly influenced by EU money, and also the civil service position - his other paymasters.  Your argument is that he's a disinterested academic, which he most certainty is not! 

And my argument is that he is no more influenced than any other British research university who get, on average, 11% of their funding (not most of their funding, as you claim) from EU. Point after point I am offering support for this argument.. You, on the other hand make no attempt to support your theory that the Russell Group has £3.5 billions of EU money at its disposal, preferring instead to throw your toys out of the pram and refuse to 'play' any more. I do not have a great deal of time either but I am never the less sufficiently interested in what you say to take the time to research your theories and provide you with the arguments which you requested. Does this latest response now mean that you've picked up your toys, got over your tantrum and want to play again - or are you still wishing I would go away?

I think you'll find that Dougan's wage comes directly from the university.

[webtrekker]

Meanwhile, in a far-flung nation a certain Senator Jeff Sessions gives his views .....

 

Quote

The British people, our special friends and allies, deserve our full support following their sovereign and considered decision to leave the European Union.

The people spoke from their hearts and with conviction. They considered deep and critical issues never discussed by the international elites. Their strong vote arose not out of fear and pique but out of love for country and pride of place. Their experience with a distant government in Brussels was given a long and fair chance to succeed. In the end, however, they concluded that the costs outweighed the benefits. Often, Britain makes changes that precede U. S. action. The Thatcher movement preceded the Reagan revolution. Both were victories for the people over outdated and corrupt forces. Both were achieved against powerful and determined establishment forces. Both resulted in historic and positive periods in their nation’s history.

Now it’s our time. The period of the nation state has not ended. No far off global government or union can command the loyalty of a people like their own country. Vague unions have no ability to call on the people to sacrifice for the common good. They seem incapable of making decisions and when they do, they have difficulty executing the decision.

Far better to celebrate the wonder and proven worth of good nation states and to work hard to use that foundation to build harmonious political and trading relations among the nations. This is the best basis for peace and prosperity.

In negotiations and relationships, national leaders should first ensure they have protected the safety and legitimate interests of their own people. This principle has been eroded and Brexit is a warning for America. Our British friends have sent the message loud and clear.

The interests of powerful international corporations, media, special interests, and leftist international forces are not coterminous with those of our people. This we must understand. The ultimate interest that our government is legally and morally bound to serve is that of our people.

Just as in the U.K., our November presidential election presents a stark contrast. The establishment forces, the global powers, are promoting their values and their interests. They want to erode borders, rapidly open America’s markets to foreign produced goods, while having little interest in advancing America’s ability to sell abroad. These forces have zero interest in better job opportunities and higher wages for our citizens.

It has been known for years that the European Union has often served as a barrier to its members taking action that would serve their own interests. Perhaps nothing proves this more definitively than the current migrant crisis, where the EU has clearly been part of the problem, not the solution.

And, consider the promotion of radical trade policies that erode the power of the people to control their lives. Millions upon millions of dollars from around the globe are being spent to get America to agree to the massive, twelve-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. While sold as a trade deal, in reality, the TPP is a Trojan Horse for yet another sovereignty-eroding global pact. If implemented, it would create a new governing body that would exercise power and make decisions that the United States Congress would be effectively powerless to block. Like the EU, each nation gets one vote. Brunei and Vietnam get one vote as does the President of the United States.

We must remember that the European Union began as a seemingly benign economic agreement, and we must not forget, that as Secretary of State, with negotiating responsibility for the TPP, Hillary Clinton promoted it and called it the ‘gold standard’ for a trade deal. That should give us all pause. This sovereignty eroding trade deal is in perfect accord with her globalist agenda.

Too many politicians and pundits here in America have been woefully oblivious to, or in some cases complicit in, what is going on around us. The failed European Union experiment, and Great Britain’s rejection of it must serve as a wake-up call for all of us in America.

I applaud yesterday’s strong and patriotic action taken by America’s special friend, retaking its independence. I know that moving forward the deep and historic ties between Great Britain and America will grow ever stronger. I believe the American people too will choose independence this November.

 

Source: http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/sessions-brexit-allowed-british-people-rejected-international-elites-now-americas-turn/