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

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  #1534769 18-Apr-2016 11:04
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?


10559 posts

Uber Geek


  #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)

 

 

 

 


 
 
 
 


485 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  #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.

 

 




1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1534864 18-Apr-2016 12:29
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.

 

 

 


1890 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1534904 18-Apr-2016 12:44
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".


14694 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #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.






10559 posts

Uber Geek


  #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"?).  

 

 


 
 
 
 


14694 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #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






14694 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #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

458 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1535063 18-Apr-2016 15:30
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.


15337 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1535075 18-Apr-2016 15:52
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

 

Consultant

 


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

 

He waka eke noa


485 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  #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

1572 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #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.


1890 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1535150 18-Apr-2016 18:44
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?




1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1535192 18-Apr-2016 20:45
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




News »

Freeview On Demand app launches on Sony Android TVs
Posted 6-Aug-2020 13:35


UFB hits more than one million connections
Posted 6-Aug-2020 09:42


D-Link A/NZ extends COVR Wi-Fi EasyMesh System series with new three-pack
Posted 4-Aug-2020 15:01


New Zealand software Rfider tracks coffee from Colombia all the way to New Zealand businesses
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:35


Logitech G launches Pro X Wireless gaming headset
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:21


Sony Alpha 7S III provides supreme imaging performance
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:11


Sony introduces first CFexpress Type A memory card
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:05


Marsello acquires Goody consolidating online and in-store marketing position
Posted 30-Jul-2020 16:26


Fonterra first major customer for Microsoft's New Zealand datacentre
Posted 30-Jul-2020 08:07


Everything we learnt at the IBM Cloud Forum 2020
Posted 29-Jul-2020 14:45


Dropbox launches native HelloSign workflow and data residency in Australia
Posted 29-Jul-2020 12:48


Spark launches 5G in Palmerston North
Posted 29-Jul-2020 09:50


Lenovo brings speed and smarter features to new 5G mobile gaming phone
Posted 28-Jul-2020 22:00


Withings raises $60 million to enable bridge between patients and healthcare
Posted 28-Jul-2020 21:51


QNAP integrates Catalyst Cloud Object Storage into Hybrid Backup solution
Posted 28-Jul-2020 21:40



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.