You consider Brown and Blair socialists? Even piss poor ones? I should imagine both the men themselves would shudder at the comparison. The problem is, of course, that such terminology has been rendered meaningless by the last 20 years of politics anyway. As to the WHD, you've encapsulated very neatly the essential pointlessness of much EU legislation: you can break the letter of the law in countless ways - but hey, the spirit of the law is inviolable!
More than Cameron, anyway. Not relevant. As I say, you wouldn't build a factory or invest millions of pounds on the off-chance that the law WOULDN'T be applied, would you, so we're unlikely to start competing with the far east as a matter of course to see whose employees will work for the smallest handful of rice a day.
No available evidence comes to mind. No, but then no one was building Filipino-style sweat shops in pre-WHD western Europe either. Like I said - it's legislation that is pointless in concept as well as ineffectual in practice. The idea that without it, the great European worker would have found themselves on a downward spiral to Calcutta-sur-Seine is silly. Ergo, legislation that justifies itself by those means is also silly.
Well, be fair Matt. Even Dave 'one-is-an-ordinary-chap' Cameron can't fcuk us over BEFORE he gets into power That sounds like an argument for scrapping all laws, including against murder, because very few people commit murder. I'm not sure that's how it works mate.
I meant more that there's no immediately apparent evidence, based on 13 years of their rule, that either Blair or Brown are more socialist than Cameron. It's nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is that we got all hot and bothered about a law that, in the final analysis, has no real purpose or value to society. Unlike laws against murder. Unless you're arguing that there are a similarly large loopholes in our murder laws as there are in the WHD?
I'd suggest that the investment in public services and direction of funding towards the sector of society that can least help itself is evidence of that... unless you think Cameron would have done the same? If you Do... well, that's certainly an opinion alright The 'loopholes', as you put, are appropriate to the importance of the law itself. With murder it's vital that there are NO holes at all. With the WHD it's maybe not quite so important but that doesn't mean the law is worthless any more than the law against speeding on the roads is worthless. Clearly, it's possible to drive too quickly and not have an accident but that doesn't mean we should scrap the law, does it.
I hope you didn't intend to compare Blair with the Nazi Goebbels (who was a cheap demagogue and no personality, btw)...
You, or someone else, mentioned that Blair had 'personality', (whatever THAT means), and, in that context, my response is that so have a lot of people including people that are extremely unnatractive. You say Goebbels didn't have much of a personality but, like I say, I disagree. Frankly, this isn't that surprising because you didn't really define what 'personality' meant, did you. IOW, I don't think that saying someone has 'personality' is much of an achievement or reason to vote for them. If you'd said an attractive personality then, OK!
Read: massively inflating the size and remuneration of the civil service. We've done this debate. Labour has increased the tax burden on every sector of society by an average of 17%. No, he'll do the opposite - he'll decimate the civil service and cut taxes for thee and me, all the while trumpeting to the feckless and the hapless that what looks, tastes and smells like a shit sandwich is in fact finest caviar. That doesn't make any sense. A law that can be disregarded in pretty much any way imaginable renders a law unimportant in fact and nature. Now there's a debate. Fire up google and ask it which has the higher ratio of fatal accidents: a 70mph British motorway or an unrestricted Autobahn.
And of course, those 'civil servants' never do anything that benefits the public? is THAT what you're saying? That rather smacks of the tories old trick during the election a few years ago of having a load of cardboard cut-out fellas in bowler hats implying that that's what everyone in the civil service looks like. Those at the bottom have GAINED from the labour party being power, very significantly in some respects. You seem to have forgotten, (maybe I didn't mention it to be fair), that my daughter was on a low wage up until quite recently and gained from working tax credit, (you think your tax has gone up when they're sending YOU a cheque???), and my parents are pensioners and have gained a great deal over the past 10+ years, particularly in terms of massive improvements in their healthcare from the NHS but also from the generosity of their LABOUR-RUN council. The fact that you and I have probably paid for it is exactly how it should be. Agreed. It can't be disregarded in every way imaginable. Up until a couple of years ago my brother was running a concern employing about 700 people and I can ASSURE you that HE couldn't simply ignore it... not by any means. The fact that you can wangle some stuff on the margins is irrelevant. Having said that if there is large scale unemployment combined with the tories 'slash-and-burn' approach to unemployment and other benefits then these things will become more difficult as the alternative will become unpalatable but that's another matter. Frankly, those are EXACTLY the times when the government SHOULD try and involve itself to help people. Again, you seem to forget that I've driven in both the UK and Germany, (not to mention the fact I've been driving for nearly 40 years), but here's a clue as to why that might be. A GERMAN AUTOBAHN. A BRITISH MOTORWAY. Do you, er... notice anything Matt? Anything at all?
It's much harder to get a licence in Germany afaik. In the UK you're not even allowed on motorways when learning or during your test.
I did'nt bother to vote this time around and probably will never vote again in this country unless it's to legalize weed which wont happen in my life time im 100% certain. For the record I voted Yes first time around,but i find it highly insulting that it went the same way as the Lisbon Treaty did. You all know that fool me once/twice bollocks,so whats the point in putting these matters to a vote if the out come will be overturned until the favourable outcome is reached. Talk about pure and utter bullshit,which I honestly could'nt give a flying toss about any of it anymore so f**k em....
This 2nd poll was decisive, no matter of the outcome. If Ireland voted "no" again, Lisbon would be dead now. Thankfully, the huge majority of Irish people was better informed this time and wasn't prone to Libertas' cheap anti-EU propaganda! And the Czechs aren't prone to their stubborn president's propaganda either. more: CLICK
Not at all. There are literally dozens of useful civil servants. But it's undeniable that a lot of the "investment in services" that Blair and then Brown have gone on about has been in the shape of a massively expanded government bureaucracy. There are 490,000 full-time employees in the UK Civil Service. And since 1997, from a base of 100, their remuneration has risen to 145 (these figures are all available on the website of the Office of National Statistics). Proven untruth. "The poorest households in Britain are paying a higher share of taxes than before Labour came to power," according to a report by the Centre for Policy Studies. The study demonstrates that the poorest fifth of the population retained more income and had more benefits under the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major than they now have. Author Charles Elphicke points out that if the policies of Tory governments had continued, the poorest quintile would have £531 more per year. The next poorest fifth would have had £427 more. At the same time the higher income groups all share less of the tax burden." If you fancy making an empoverished academic richer by £2.50, you can buy a copy of the full report at the CPS website. No, I'd not forgotten. I'm not claiming that some of the countless billions pumped into the public sector have not benefitted society. Even a blind dog shits on the floor, as they say. The pay increases within the NHS, for instance, are undeniably a credit to the Labour government (if only they could match it with more efficient management, eh?). Well, he can at the moment, because it's not law in the UK. Another feather in Labour's cap, as we're being all fair and balanced and all that. And if your brother were Belgian he could ignore most of it, because as I've said, the countries that were quickest to implement it had the least need of it, as they have thick layers of union control over such issues already. That you've learnt to use Google Images? Congratulations! I had read that internet sophistication was advancing most rapidly amongst the "silver surfer" demographic. (ducks and runs)
Wrong....the majority of people here voted yes due to the desprate state of the economy because the cheap pro-EU propaganda told them to do so.....end of the day bothsides are a bunch of lying bastards,but still we all knew that anyway and besides thats got nothing to do with my op. Twice now Ireland has had the peoples votes thrown out over a european matter to be made vote again thats my gripe and why i feel like my vote is worthless.
And you don't think that might be because their pay had been held down in comparision to the private sector to an extent? Come on... In any event, as you've stated below, that was largely to try and achieve the improvements in public services they HAVE actually achieved, REGARDLESS of what tory 'so-called' think tanks, say. So a report from an organisation set up by the tories says that the tories polices would mean that poor people would be better off under a tory government. Hmm... let me think. How does this work? Perverse as it might seem I'd rather believe the evidence of my own eyes. Money has been wasted, obviously, but too often that's used as a reason not to spend anything at all. I was thinking of laws, (including EU-inspired ones), rather than the WHD directive itself. Which raises the question, what's the problem then. Anyway, none of this changes the fact that the main point of disagreement between right and left with Europe is that the right want to have all the benefits, (to THEM), of wider markets WITHOUT the drawbacks, (again, to THEM), of the workers sticking their noses in. That's my point. And so you should young Clark, so you should!!! BTW, what the hell are you doing in Belgium?
And why did you allegedly vote "yes" in the first poll (as you mentioned above)? Oh. Why should your vote be worthless if you had already voted "yes" in the first poll?
Allegedly I voted Yes first time because i believed it was in my countrys best intrest,however the No vote won and that was suppossed to be that,but no the rest of europe who did'nt vote on the matter had a big moan yadda..yadda...yadda second referendum makeing all the original votes worthless. Dispite the fact that Yes won second time around,The brown envelope pushers known as the Irish government buckled under a bit of preassure from the EU to overturn a 100% legal referendum,thats not what democracy is about. If I were to tell someone "pick A or B" and they said "ok B" then i said "try again",what was the point of me offering them a choice in the first place.So much for the one man,one vote principle. So like ive said already I honestly could'nt give a rats arse about any of it anymore,and i certainly won't vote here again.Thats my final word on the matter.... /Fin
Is that relevant? Fact is, a very large proportion of the "investment in services" that Labour will trumpet during the upcoming election campaign was directed at nothing remotely useful to the overwhelming majority of us. Well, we are where we are Andy. I've got a research study conducted by an economics expert and you've got ... I dunno. "The Tories. Yuk!". By all means discredit the study with evidence of your own. It's not so much perverse as unrepresentative. Unless this leading to the that bit of the conversation where you go "actually, yes, I AM omniscient". Basic Research 101: data beats anecdote. We've only gone and expanded into Europe. And they've only gone and told me to go and do it!
Well, I suppose it depends on whether you think it's better to have doctors and nurses treating you and teachers teaching your kids that would be better off working for British Gas, doesn't it. Personally I think that wages for public service employees are one of the costs of running a civilised society... but maybe that's just me. Well, I am, obviously... more to the point I've actually seen the income and standard of both my parents and my daughter, (well, a couple of her friends, more accurately), rise significantly through the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, increased child benefit, increased income support for children, the working families tax credit, the children’s tax credit and other measures which did a great deal for the poor and took more than one million children out of poverty. Of course, I also know enough about this to realise that you can make statistics say almost anything. I freely admit I can't be bothered to trawl through a 'study' from some right-wing Thatcher acolyte because I suspect if I did I'd find that he'd pulled that old trick of saying that poverty has to be measured in comparison to other people so, as others become MORE wealthy, (albeit at a greater rate), the 'poor' become poorer even though they're actually better off. That's usually the way these things are done. I know... I've done it myself As I say, I'd rather trust my own information from people who HAVEN'T got an axe to grind. Not in the world of Bennett, it doesn't Nah, it's not that. It's that I've looked into it myself and established what I think are the relevant facts. 'They', eh? The bastards... Presumably not getting back to Anfield as much as you'd like these days?
It would actually be fairer to compare the Autobahn to America's Highways or France's whatever they are called. And Autobahn wins the comparision to the US and barely loses the one against France... [/OT]
Klaus will sign Lisbon treaty: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_443425.html Looks like Klaus could sign the treaty by the end of the month...