Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

UHD

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 280


  Reply # 1534769 18-Apr-2016 11:04
One person supports this post
Send private message

Hmm, I haven't seen decent arguments beyond immigration problems and the fact that Brussels now supposedly overrules Britain's government on anything it feels like. I wonder if there are concrete examples of either?


6698 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3455


  Reply # 1534770 18-Apr-2016 11:05
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

roobarb:

 

Geektastic: No one seems to get the point I'm making by referring to pre EU Britain so I'll try again.

It's an illustration of the fact that Britain used to govern itself. It did so for thousands of years.

 

Lets start with being ruled by the Romans for four hundred years.

 

Then the dark ages, possibly with the mythical Briton Arthur

 

Then invaded by and ruled by the Danes in the North East, and Anglo-Saxons in the south west

 

With the acceptance of Christianity, we also accepted rule from Rome all over again.

 

Then invaded by the Normans and ruled by their descendants for a while, even the great Richard the Lionheart would gladly have sold England

 

Eventually the French kings became English, but we got bored with them and had to ask for the Scots to give us their king.

 

That worked out for a bit until we had to chop one of their heads off and become a republic.

 

That didn't work out to well so got the executed King's son back in, lost patience with that line and imported another king from the continent to sort us out.

 

So over the past couple of thousand years we have numerous examples of being ruled by those from the continent.

 

As for the empire, the offer from Germany for peace at the start of WWII was stay out of the war and you can keep your empire. Instead we decided to try and save Europe, and the price from the US to save us was bankruptcy and losing the empire.

 

The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe no matter how much we try and deny it.

 

We proved that having incestuous royal families intermarried across Europe could not prevent war, perhaps strong economic ties could.

 

I'd even suggest that over that 2,000 year period, over half of that had the rulers speaking a different language to the native peasants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

 


483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

  Reply # 1534815 18-Apr-2016 11:48
Send private message

Fred99:
Geektastic: You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

Agreed, and if you want to include thousands of years of history, the Anglo-Saxons themselves were unwelcome immigrants, eg Hengist and Horsa overstaying their welcome.

 

 




1099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446


  Reply # 1534864 18-Apr-2016 12:29
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time. 

 

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

 

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

 

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

 

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

 

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

 

 

 

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

 

 

 


1480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742


  Reply # 1534904 18-Apr-2016 12:44
4 people support this post
Send private message

Interesting to compare the TPPA - where it is feared that occasionally, in certain circumstances, overseas interests may have the opportunity to influence NZ govt and/or companies.  Result - widespread protests.  Now the EU, where effectively UK's sovereignty, control of borders, right to legislate etc etc  is being salami-sliced away all under the guise of better trade.  Result - some people say "so what? It's for the greater good".


11504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3684

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1535022 18-Apr-2016 15:13
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Geektastic:

 

roobarb:

 

Geektastic: No one seems to get the point I'm making by referring to pre EU Britain so I'll try again.

It's an illustration of the fact that Britain used to govern itself. It did so for thousands of years.

 

Lets start with being ruled by the Romans for four hundred years.

 

Then the dark ages, possibly with the mythical Briton Arthur

 

Then invaded by and ruled by the Danes in the North East, and Anglo-Saxons in the south west

 

With the acceptance of Christianity, we also accepted rule from Rome all over again.

 

Then invaded by the Normans and ruled by their descendants for a while, even the great Richard the Lionheart would gladly have sold England

 

Eventually the French kings became English, but we got bored with them and had to ask for the Scots to give us their king.

 

That worked out for a bit until we had to chop one of their heads off and become a republic.

 

That didn't work out to well so got the executed King's son back in, lost patience with that line and imported another king from the continent to sort us out.

 

So over the past couple of thousand years we have numerous examples of being ruled by those from the continent.

 

As for the empire, the offer from Germany for peace at the start of WWII was stay out of the war and you can keep your empire. Instead we decided to try and save Europe, and the price from the US to save us was bankruptcy and losing the empire.

 

The British Isles are part of the continent of Europe no matter how much we try and deny it.

 

We proved that having incestuous royal families intermarried across Europe could not prevent war, perhaps strong economic ties could.

 

I'd even suggest that over that 2,000 year period, over half of that had the rulers speaking a different language to the native peasants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're labouring entirely the wrong point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not remotely arguing about immigrants other than the fact that the unelected rulers (see next para!) remove control of immigration from the elected rulers.

 

My point is that Britain is run by a foreign power based in Brussels.






6698 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3455


  Reply # 1535023 18-Apr-2016 15:14
Send private message

DaveB:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time. 

 

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

 

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

 

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

 

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

 

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

 

 

 

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

 

 

 

 

It's been made very clear that he thinks it has everything to do with the empire.

 

I don't have a comprehension problem.  You haven't helped by repeating what had been said, which in context are all very spurious emotional arguments IMO - with more than a hint of straw-man ("Texas"?  "cannot control who enters"?).  

 

 


11504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3684

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1535024 18-Apr-2016 15:15
Send private message

DaveB:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time. 

 

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

 

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

 

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

 

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

 

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

 

 

 

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

 

 

 

 

Halleluja!! innocent






11504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3684

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1535033 18-Apr-2016 15:19
Send private message

Fred99:

 

DaveB:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

What is your point?

 

You seem to be arguing that immigration is the defining issue, yet only about 11% of the UK population are immigrants.

 

(Compare 25% NZ, 28% Aus, 43% Singapore)

 

 

 

Look, rather than let this develop into some sort of points scoring contest, I will repeat some of Geektastics very valid comments as it would appear that you did not read them or, if you did, would appear to want an argument about views on just immigration.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the Empire. Britain has run itself in some form for a very very long time. It has been run by unelected officials in Brussels for a very very short time. 

 

The Common Market was a relatively sensible idea. That morphed into a controlling autocracy with no further consultation with the voters and foolish politicians - particularly in the post-Thatcher period - have allowed ever-more power to be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

 

A common trading block has no reason, for example, to be creating a court of law that can supersede the highest national court in the land and actually disapply UK law where it finds that UK law has not given sufficient or correct effect to EU law. A common trading block has no need to tell sovereign nations that they cannot control who enters their borders. Imagine if the PM of Australia could unilaterally allow 100,000 unscreened refugees to enter New Zealand and NZ could do nothing whatsoever about that?

 

British people never voted to join a body that would become the United States of Europe in which Britain would be the equivalent of, say, Texas in the USA: nor where they ever even asked to vote on that proposition. It was imposed on them, in effect by stealth.

 

They have - finally - one opportunity to undo that.

 

Personally I think Project Fear will triumph and they will vote to stay - after which, the EU will know it can continue on unchecked because the last glimmer of dissent has been extinguished.

 

 

 

I hope the fact that I have highlighted some of the issues help you understand exactly what his point is. It's quite simple really.

 

 

 

 

It's been made very clear that he thinks it has everything to do with the empire.

 

I don't have a comprehension problem.  You haven't helped by repeating what had been said, which in context are all very spurious emotional arguments IMO - with more than a hint of straw-man ("Texas"?  "cannot control who enters"?).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, no and again, no.

 

It has nothing per se to do with the Empire. It has to do with the fact that until 1973 Britain did a perfectly good job of running itself as a sovereign state for a very very long time. The original point also included the fact that many people voting on the issue this year cannot remember that time because they were not alive. Ergo, it will be even harder for them to evaluate what 'out' looks like or could look like.






jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1535063 18-Apr-2016 15:30
One person supports this post
Send private message

For those who have iplayer, there's an interesting documentary on Britain's relationship with the continent.  I watched the first episode which covered how they got into the ECC in the first place.

 

I'm torn.

 

According to the documentary, they only got on board when they saw that economically Europe was doing much better.  As a trade agreement it is essential.  However the benefits of open borders are not so clear.  Even before the current refugee crisis, economic migrants have been pouring into the UK without them having any control over them.  On the other hand, I think the British people have benefitted from social regulation that would never have happened if it wasn't in the EU.

 

Can't decide myself.


12605 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5916

Trusted

  Reply # 1535075 18-Apr-2016 15:52
One person supports this post
Send private message

This should have been dealt with by referendum before the UK entered the EU. I also think generation affecting decisions should never happen by stealth or mid term of a Government, it needs to be an election issue clearly put to the voting public or a separate referendum vote.

 

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

  Reply # 1535084 18-Apr-2016 16:05
Send private message

The common market was joined in 1973, under Edward Heath.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_2459000/2459167.stm

 

There was a referendum after joining the common market.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

 

Result was in favour of staying.

 

It became the EU following the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

 

The British electorate was never given the opportunity to vote directly on the changes brought in by the treaty.

 

That put's it under John Major's watch.

 

 

 

 


SJB

1128 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 265

Trusted

  Reply # 1535125 18-Apr-2016 17:34
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30 

 

 

I agree on the need for a clear majority. Unfortunately this referendum is not being run that way.

 

From the polls so far it looks like it is going to be a very close run thing. If the final result ends up like that there are going to be a lot of very unhappy Brits.


1480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742


  Reply # 1535150 18-Apr-2016 18:44
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

This should have been dealt with by referendum before the UK entered the EU. I also think generation affecting decisions should never happen by stealth or mid term of a Government, it needs to be an election issue clearly put to the voting public or a separate referendum vote.

 

Where it concerns sovereignty and the dilution of sovereignty the vote should not be 50/50 it should be a clear majority of say 70/30 

 

 

The problem is, the "scope" of EU involvement has changed so dramatically since the UK decided to join.  It's a bit like NZ deciding (via general election) to join the TPPA with its current conditions, then the TPPA bloc gradually changing the agreement to include free migration from any TPPA country and the power of a TPPA council to change or veto any NZ law, or overrule court judgments. Perhaps the kiwis who think UK should stay "for the common good" would like to comment on their views of this analogy?




1099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446


  Reply # 1535192 18-Apr-2016 20:45
2 people support this post
Send private message

shk292:

 

 

 

The problem is, the "scope" of EU involvement has changed so dramatically since the UK decided to join.  It's a bit like NZ deciding (via general election) to join the TPPA with its current conditions, then the TPPA bloc gradually changing the agreement .............

 

 

I am totally against the TPPA for the very reason above. Stealth in politics does not sit well with me, as I am old school and still have this belief that government should be there to represent the wishes of the people.

 

As jmh pointed out for those that have iPlayer, watch Europe: Them or Us. It is a real eye opener and one cannot help but think about the TPPA. More disturbing and I think overlooked by many people is how some of these deals are put together, with future changes planned years ahead of their time.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Hawaiki Transpacific cable ready-for-service
Posted 20-Jul-2018 11:29


Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central launches
Posted 10-Jul-2018 10:40


Spark completes first milestone in voice platform upgrade
Posted 10-Jul-2018 09:36


Microsoft ices heated developers
Posted 6-Jul-2018 20:16


PB Technologies charged for its extended warranties and warned for bait advertising
Posted 3-Jul-2018 15:45


Almost 20,000 people claim credits from Spark
Posted 29-Jun-2018 10:40


Cove sells NZ's first insurance policy via chatbot
Posted 25-Jun-2018 10:04


N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.