Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Is it another Data centre glitch, power failure, hack or AI crash?
Mass Flight cancellation, holidays ruined
https: //youtu. be/OwJOnpV6t9E?si=brmG9L8rU5lpBni8
Mass Flight cancellation, holidays ruined
https: //youtu. be/OwJOnpV6t9E?si=brmG9L8rU5lpBni8
EU US Trade deal media body language analysis. Mm.
Who looks the most uncomfortable at..?
I vonder von der who?
https: //youtu. be/ObckChfCBds?si=Qt5R0S9h-H-M19s7
Who looks the most uncomfortable at..?
I vonder von der who?
https: //youtu. be/ObckChfCBds?si=Qt5R0S9h-H-M19s7
that's the trouble when you are forced to listen to an inumerate head of state who chooses which law to respect.
Tariff comedy
What a deal..
Vonderful!
youtube.com
What a deal..
Vonderful!
Ireland's Response to the Trump Tariffs #shorts
Ireland fights back against the tariffs #comedy #irishcomedy #tariffs We do a live show! And we're touring the world. See our list of dates and what cities h...
youtube.com
I was listening last night to explanations on the role of chief justice Roberts of the US supreme Court. Roberts in Trump versus presidential immunity. The explanation was from a constitutional law professor.
Roberts is proponent of the unitary model of presidency. Basically, Roberts affirmed that the president can use his discretionary power to fire anyone working for the government. The keyword as far as trump is concerned is discretionary.
Previously, Congress sets up departments and agencies, processes and statutes how government should be run. Their heads swear to uphold the law faithfully and can only be fired by the president on good causes like inefficiency or corruption.
What chief Roberts did is simple and yet has created worldwide upheavals. It has turned the phrase 'we all serve at the president's pleasure' into something much more sinister, turning Trump into chief of the treasury, trade, justice, EPA, universities etc.
The prospect that issues on separation of powers are not on the mind of populist voters is frightening.
Previously, Congress sets up departments and agencies, processes and statutes how government should be run. Their heads swear to uphold the law faithfully and can only be fired by the president on good causes like inefficiency or corruption.
What chief Roberts did is simple and yet has created worldwide upheavals. It has turned the phrase 'we all serve at the president's pleasure' into something much more sinister, turning Trump into chief of the treasury, trade, justice, EPA, universities etc.
The prospect that issues on separation of powers are not on the mind of populist voters is frightening.
Democracy in name only, dictatorship in reality, supported by the mob. Indistinguishable from Putin's current rule in Russia.
.
indeed, though it's impossible not to sympathise with populist voters who - in the binary stitch up in which dems & republicans (like tory/labour) indistinguishably switch into govt to take money from oligarchs as a uniparty - feel they have no otrher option. it's a frying pan fire routine, but what's the alternative?I was listening last night to explanations on the role of chief justice Roberts of the US supreme Court. Roberts in Trump versus presidential immunity. The explanation was from a constitutional law professor.
Roberts is proponent of the unitary model of presidency. Basically, Roberts affirmed that the president can use his discretionary power to fire anyone working for the government. The keyword as far as trump is concerned is discretionary.
Previously, Congress sets up departments and agencies, processes and statutes how government should be run. Their heads swear to uphold the law faithfully and can only be fired by the president on good causes like inefficiency or corruption.
What chief Roberts did is simple and yet has created worldwide upheavals. It has turned the phrase 'we all serve at the president's pleasure' into something much more sinister, turning Trump into chief of the treasury, trade, justice, EPA, universities etc.
The prospect that issues on separation of powers are not on the mind of populist voters is frightening.
what's the alternative? Change the voting system to proportional? I reckon the EU is still the best solution. Supra-national, its main role is to protect fundamental human rights against local dictators.
It's Hydrogen *Powder* officer, honest, Sniff, Sniff (for my hydrogen fuel cell electric bike)
Humour - for people with a sense of it..
Some on forum seem to have lost theirs?
officer, honest, Sniff, Sniff (for my hydrogen fuel cell electric bike)Humour - for people with a sense of it..
Some on forum seem to have lost theirs?
Not really, it's just that these sort of jokes can become boring and no longer funny if used too often.It's Hydrogen *Powder*
View attachment 63886
Humour - for people with a sense of it..
Some on forum seem to have lost theirs?
Here's the link to read the facts behind your quoted subject:
Australia’s Revolutionary Hydrogen Powder Is Easier and Cheaper to Use for Clean Energy
A mere month of expected output at 2030 production targets would more than satisfy the entire global hydrogen energy demand.
www.goodnewsnetwork.org
.
The rise of what you might regard as 'disturbing' right wing parties is greatly eased by PR.
In the UK system, it is VERY VERY hard for an insurgent party to get seats in Parliament in any numbers. You don't just need abig chunk of the vote in general, you only get a seat if you win in each constituency.
Witness the fact that in the 2024 General Election, the much despised Reform gained only 5 seats when they had 4.1 million votes, whereas the Lib Dems got 72 seats with 3.5 million votes.
In fact, Labour's landslide of 412 seats was gained with only 9 million votes, a little more than twice Reforms vote tally and 82 times the number of seats.....
Be careful what you wish for when advocating for PR.
The ONLY reason we see Netanyahu in power in Israel, is PR.
He is under the thumb of a tiny number of generally very unpopular religious / nationalist extremists who run the Settler Party and he has to do their bidding to stay in power, because PR actively works against any party getting into a dominating position.
We have also seen similar issues of parties that YOU and many here would be horrified at who have gained more than a mere foothold in some Parliaments in Europe.
You must already know all this.
The other thing is that PR's tendency to lead to inconclusive results and consequent difficulty in forming a government can lead to absolute paralysis of the sort we saw in Belgium in 2019/20. The country was without a government for 651 days because no party could command a majority. We have seen the same thing in NI too - all down to PR's tendency to lead to deadlock.
2024 General Election results:
UK election results 2024 | Constituency map
Get the latest news and election results in the 2024 General election from BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Another perspective on the debate about PR vs FPTP
www.tutor2u.net
Geert Wilders and the debate over PR for Westminster
The outcome of the 2023 Dutch elections - another argument in favour of ditching first past the post for Westminster elections? If you didn't already know, the UK stands as one of only two European countries that employs the simple plurality system, often referred to as first past the post...
www.tutor2u.net
The main role of the EU used to be an economic community without trade barriers. I remember voting for that twice in the 1970s. Then it morphed into something else - a meddling, bombastic and undemocratic organisation which forced rules and regulations on countries, often against their interests and totally unresponsive to the concerns of the electorates. It is probably true that some countries did very well out of all this - Germany for example, and likely France too.
However - the main thing I noticed about it was how over the years since I had voted to join the EEC, as it had been called, it had taken on more and more power over the nation states which had joined, and was very much determined NOT to allow them any control over their own interests.
'How could that be?' you might say. 'Does it not have a parliament, and don't people get to elect representatives to go there and represent their views?'
Well - yes it does have a parliament, but the views of the people who give their vote are not taken into account in the laws which come out of it.
'How so?' you might ask.
Well, the main reason is that unlike our national parliament, the members we send there can NEVER propose legislation. My MP at Westminster is now the Labour member, Joe Morris. If I write to him about some important matter, he COULD put forward a bill to represent my issue. Not so with a European politician. ONLY the European Commission can propose legislation. The MEPs in the European Parliament can only rubber stamp the legislation proposed and written by the Commission, and we don't elect commissioners. What is more, it is very nearly unheard of for MEPs not to rubber stamp what the Commission proposes. It almost never happens - though there have been a very few instances of it.
'But', you might say, 'Our national governments send (in the case of the UK when it was a member of the EU) two commissioners, don't they, and we vote for our own parliament so its all fine.'
Well - no it isn't all fine. For one thing, that is VERY remote from the individual who wants someone to represent his concerns, and worse still - and this is truly bonkers - the commissioners must take an oath to NOT represent their own country. They actually have to swear NOT to pursue their national interest, and YOUR concerns and needs, but only to work for the benefit of the EU.
This is truly appalling to anyone who values democratic rights and the idea that the common man or woman can choose the people who make the laws that bind him or her. It is the absolute opposite of democracy.
Now I know that here there are people who like to deride politicians who DO try to represent the concerns of the ordinary man or woman and call them 'Populists', as if this was some horrible, disreputable thing, but to my mind, representing what the people want and transforming it into law is EXACTLY what a democratic politicians ought to be doing.
For too long, politics in Britain but much more so in the EU circles has taken the view that 'the people' are some sort of unwashed, ignorant, barely literate, oafs, who need to be kept away from power and at the very least ignored.
I don't like that. If democracy is not about the people being empowered, why don't we just all go for dictatorships instead?
Oh and by the way Woosh - who are these 'local dictators' that you speak of within the EU? All those countries are democracies. I think what you mean by 'local dictators', is the politicians you don't agree with. It is my view that when we in the UK elect a government, I accept their right to govern. I did not vote for Labour, but I accept their mandate and hope that they can do well. They have made in my view some serious mistakes, but fewer than I expected, and some of the cabinet have been doing well in some areas. I am particularly pleased that Angela Rayner, who has come up in my estimation, has a serious commitment and a plan to build very many more houses and as far as I can see, to build homes which can be bought or rented at affordable rates. This is great. I very much approve of that. She has also been talking about smashing down planning obstacles, not only for housing, but for large infrastructure projects like the pylons that National Grid need to put up to move electric power from where it is generated to where it is needed. GREAT!!
Also, it was 'briefed' last week that in Cabinet, Angela Rayner warned the Prime Minister that unless he wanted to see massive gains for Farage and widespread social chaos on the streets, that he had better get a grip on migration numbers and the illegal arrival of people on small boats. Looks like Angie might have the same idea of what a democratic politician is supposed to do as I have - take notice of what the electorate say and try to do what they want.
More power to people like that.
Last edited:
What mistakes has Labour made in its first year?
Raising NI contributions for employers. This will rake in some money, but at the cost of jobs. It will also boost inflation. Remember this: Companies don't absorb costs and penalise their shareholders. If a cost is imposed on them, the price of the goods or services they sell goes up. The money that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves gets from NI rises WILL come out of the people who buy those goods or services. When Tesco or Sainsburies have to pay extra NI for their employees YOU PAY THAT TAX as your shopping costs more. Pretty obvious really, but that was a mistake.
Some of Labour's Employment Law changes are a disaster and some are not.
NOT a disaster is the end of zero hours contracts.
NOT a disaster is raising the minimum wage.
There are whole areas of the economy which treat their workers abominably badly - care work for one, some farm labouring jobs are another where if it rains the workers don't get paid and sit in a stinking caravan, unpaid until they can get back on the fields.
There are more than that too - some warehouse work and Deliveroo type enterprises are so bad that they depend almost entirely on illegal migrants for employees. The most desperate people will work there, no one else will.
However - giving people permanent tenure from day one is an absolute disaster. Small businesses need to try people for a while to see if they fit. The risk of hiring a 'wrong 'un' and ending up saddled with him or her is an unnecessary nightmare for a small business and also for a larger one. Another incredible liability is that you can now employ a woman in a full time role and having given her the job, she can walk in on day one and say, 'Oh - by the way, I am pregnant and next month I want to start my maternity leave. What??? Imagine that in a small enterprise...... Imagine it in a large one where it will happen much more often.
I am sure Labour has made other mistakes - these are just a few that spring to mind.
Like I said above - they have done some good things. The Jury is still out.
Raising NI contributions for employers. This will rake in some money, but at the cost of jobs. It will also boost inflation. Remember this: Companies don't absorb costs and penalise their shareholders. If a cost is imposed on them, the price of the goods or services they sell goes up. The money that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves gets from NI rises WILL come out of the people who buy those goods or services. When Tesco or Sainsburies have to pay extra NI for their employees YOU PAY THAT TAX as your shopping costs more. Pretty obvious really, but that was a mistake.
Some of Labour's Employment Law changes are a disaster and some are not.
NOT a disaster is the end of zero hours contracts.
NOT a disaster is raising the minimum wage.
There are whole areas of the economy which treat their workers abominably badly - care work for one, some farm labouring jobs are another where if it rains the workers don't get paid and sit in a stinking caravan, unpaid until they can get back on the fields.
There are more than that too - some warehouse work and Deliveroo type enterprises are so bad that they depend almost entirely on illegal migrants for employees. The most desperate people will work there, no one else will.
However - giving people permanent tenure from day one is an absolute disaster. Small businesses need to try people for a while to see if they fit. The risk of hiring a 'wrong 'un' and ending up saddled with him or her is an unnecessary nightmare for a small business and also for a larger one. Another incredible liability is that you can now employ a woman in a full time role and having given her the job, she can walk in on day one and say, 'Oh - by the way, I am pregnant and next month I want to start my maternity leave. What??? Imagine that in a small enterprise...... Imagine it in a large one where it will happen much more often.
I am sure Labour has made other mistakes - these are just a few that spring to mind.
Like I said above - they have done some good things. The Jury is still out.
Hell - I loathe Trump for a large number of reasons which I have expanded on numerous times, AND, I agree that he is probably going to be seen in future as one of the most dangerously megalomaniac politicians in American history. He is a narcissist of extraordinary proportions, utterly dishonest, manipulative and dangerously unstable and completely without any moral compass at all.
But when you say that his rule is indistinguishable from Putin's rule in Russia, maybe - just maybe, you forgot the way Putin has people killed when they oppose him. Not just one or two. Not just Prigozhin of the Wagner, convict Army (and the poor sods who happened to be on the plane when Putin had it blown up mid air) Not just Navalny, not just Litvineko and the collateral damage of Dawn Sturgis, but dozens of murders. Trump is a total sh it and a very bad dude, but Putin he ain't - at least not yet.