Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

[Hoboh]

Be fair, in most places you have a one in two chance of your vote counting, generally, unless you vote monster raving looney party.
Vote against Merkel, nil, Holland, nil, Juncker, even less!

[Hoboh]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

That depends on if the idiots made up the religion in the first place, or if God had a decent stonemason on top of a mountain!

[TANGODANCER]

*I* don't accept this is a "Christian country". Fewer than a million going to church of a Sunday. You're not kicking me out!

Tongue in cheek or no, that needs an answer. Going to Church itself means little. It isn't necessary to be seen to pray. Matthew 6:5-8.
Last time I went to church ( Christenings apart) was in Spain on Christmas Day about five years ago.

[Worthy4England]

Be fair, in most places you have a one in two chance of your vote counting, generally, unless you vote monster raving looney party.
Vote against Merkel, nil, Holland, nil, Juncker, even less!

I'm not sure I agree with that either. 65% of voters' votes count for nowt as they backed a side that didn't win. Just because you backed the side that did gives no guarantee that the person you elected is going to do much other than follow the party whip, which may or may not be something you want them to do. The notion that you have some sort of control over it, is significantly flawed...I don't feel I've got any more control over my MP than Merkel...

[TANGODANCER]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

That depends on if the idiots made up the religion in the first place, or if God had a decent stonemason on top of a mountain!

No, it doesn't Hoboh. It depends on the intelligence of those practising it. or not as the case may be. The world, surprisingly doesn't boast equal views and intelligence world-wide or country-wide. It doen't even boast that in our road. We can't even reach agreement on a football supporter site.

[Hoboh]

Be fair, in most places you have a one in two chance of your vote counting, generally, unless you vote monster raving looney party.
Vote against Merkel, nil, Holland, nil, Juncker, even less!

I'm not sure I agree with that either. 65% of voters' votes count for nowt as they backed a side that didn't win. Just because you backed the side that did gives no guarantee that the person you elected is going to do much other than follow the party whip, which may or may not be something you want them to do. The notion that you have some sort of control over it, is significantly flawed...I don't feel I've got any more control over my MP than Merkel...

At least, bare minimum, you have your vote and if your local halfwit annoys enough people, you and they can get rid.

[Hoboh]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

That depends on if the idiots made up the religion in the first place, or if God had a decent stonemason on top of a mountain!

No, it doesn't Hoboh. It depends on the intelligence of those practising it. or not as the case may be. The world, surprisingly doesn't boast equal views and intelligence world-wide or country-wide. It doen't even boast that in our road. We can't even reach agreement on a football supporter site.

Sorry Tango, it depends on if you believe some mysterious force or a man created religion.
(For what it's worth its best to keep a foot in both camps, even at risk of upsetting the puritans on both sides )

[Worthy4England]

Be fair, in most places you have a one in two chance of your vote counting, generally, unless you vote monster raving looney party.
Vote against Merkel, nil, Holland, nil, Juncker, even less!

I'm not sure I agree with that either. 65% of voters' votes count for nowt as they backed a side that didn't win. Just because you backed the side that did gives no guarantee that the person you elected is going to do much other than follow the party whip, which may or may not be something you want them to do. The notion that you have some sort of control over it, is significantly flawed...I don't feel I've got any more control over my MP than Merkel...

At least, bare minimum, you have your vote and if your local halfwit annoys enough people, you and they can get rid.

You're now arguing the difference between fck all and sod all...My elected (or not as the case may be) representatives in Europe have as many votes as Germany don't they?

[Hoboh]

Be fair, in most places you have a one in two chance of your vote counting, generally, unless you vote monster raving looney party.
Vote against Merkel, nil, Holland, nil, Juncker, even less!

I'm not sure I agree with that either. 65% of voters' votes count for nowt as they backed a side that didn't win. Just because you backed the side that did gives no guarantee that the person you elected is going to do much other than follow the party whip, which may or may not be something you want them to do. The notion that you have some sort of control over it, is significantly flawed...I don't feel I've got any more control over my MP than Merkel...

At least, bare minimum, you have your vote and if your local halfwit annoys enough people, you and they can get rid.

You're now arguing the difference between fck all and sod all...My elected (or not as the case may be) representatives in Europe have as many votes as Germany don't they?

But your elected representative in Europe cannot stop Merkel making up rules as she goes along, inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry to stay after marching across other independent states who want feck all to do with them, can they?
On another note

The Britain Stronger in Europe campaign is sending a mailout to more than 10m UK households amid signs that the referendum could be held as soon as June or July.
The leaflet, featuring a picture of a shopping trolley, says: “Being in the EU makes it cheaper to import vital goods from the EU, which means lower prices for every family. If we left the EU, the cost of these imports would increase by £11bn

So what's wrong with saving a billion off our bill

[Worthy4England]

Merkel isn't actually an MEP of course...So any rules she makes up only relate to Germany...

As for point 2 - we wouldn't save a billion off our bill. That's just additional cost of import duties - no idea whether the numbers are right but if they were, it'd be a long way from the whole story.

[Hoboh]

Merkel isn't actually an MEP of course...So any rules she makes up only relate to Germany...



As for point 2 - we wouldn't save a billion off our bill. That's just additional cost of import duties - no idea whether the numbers are right but if they were, it'd be a long way from the whole story.

You said that with your tongue so far in your cheek it's sticking out next door!

So we wouldn't 'save' our 12 billion fee then?
You mean the 'story' Europhiles can never quite spin?

[Worthy4England]

Merkel isn't actually an MEP of course...So any rules she makes up only relate to Germany...



As for point 2 - we wouldn't save a billion off our bill. That's just additional cost of import duties - no idea whether the numbers are right but if they were, it'd be a long way from the whole story.

You said that with your tongue so far in your cheek it's sticking out next door!

So we wouldn't 'save' our 12 billion fee then?
You mean the 'story' Europhiles can never quite spin?

Tell me how she makes up the rules without support from anywhere else? Does she not have to get stuff voted on?
We don't have a net contribution of 12bn. You made that bit up. Our net contribution is 8-9.9bn for the period up to around 2020. Those figures are from OBR and HM Treasury.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Nothing to do with Empire either. As I said earlier, Masai warriors, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, Papuan head hunters, Belizian Mesquito Indians... nope, no problem integrating there ( if they're here), and not much on the (ongoing) war front out there against us either.

I think your first 3 groups particularly had some trouble with integration.

I think the Inuit differ significantly from these other ethnic groups (although I'm not sure of all of them) in that they occupied land than no one had the least economic interest in (at least until the recent discovery of oil in the Arctic). Their culture was to a large extent destroyed by giving them the benefits of civilization and ruling them under Acts of Parliament and a civil service that they did not understand to the same extent they were not understood.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The integration discussion is quite interesting and not something I'd dwelt upon until moving here. As far as multicultural goes it doesn't get much more mixed than here. It works, not through integration but through a pecking order and a set of rules designed to make some allowances for the majority (expats), whilst keeping intact the cultural traditions and local beliefs. The trade off for the locals is that without the expats their country couldn't develop at the rate and extent it has. It is also the difference between having to do various jobs that they probably have no wish to do. The other thing to note is that if an expat is here they are contributing, whether through skills, experience or labour; I think that makes it more palatable for the locals and suspect a part of the perceived problem in the UK.

Ultimately there is a vast difference culturally, ethically and morally. It will take many generations for any sort of meeting of minds, but will never happen if the tradition of importing spouses (not even met) from rural villages continues. These spouses have never been exposed to anything different so you are starting from zero each time. If multi-culturism is to work in the UK then the rules have to change, though unfortunately there is too much hand wringing for that to happen. I would start with not allowing importation of spouses that have not or been barely met before. If that is a deal breaker then they are welcome to marry them and join them in their village.

If as a society the UK wants less immigration then I think it has to look at itself and make a few changes. Lets have an education system that gives us young people with the skills for the jobs we create. The unskilled have to accept that unless they learn some skills will have to do the stuff no one wants to do, but those jobs should carry a liveable wage. If you achieve that then a fair proportion of the immigration is not needed. But as it stands half the population has a media studies qualification and we're short of doctors etc.

[Harry Genshaw]

Nothing to do with Empire either. As I said earlier, Masai warriors, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, Papuan head hunters, Belizian Mesquito Indians... nope, no problem integrating there ( if they're here), and not much on the (ongoing) war front out there against us either.

I think your first 3 groups particularly had some trouble with integration.

I think the Inuit differ significantly from these other ethnic groups (although I'm not sure of all of them) in that they occupied land than no one had the least economic interest in (at least until the recent discovery of oil in the Arctic). Their culture was to a large extent destroyed by giving them the benefits of civilization and ruling them under Acts of Parliament and a civil service that they did not understand to the same extent they were not understood.

Agreed but I was mainly thinking of the poor beggars that were shoved further into the arctic to develop colonies and left to fend for themselves by well meaning Westerners.

[Bruce Rioja]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

Yeah, those little old ladies causing a rumpus as soon as their Sunday morning service is over. Get them hanged!

[thebish]

a propos of some bits of the above..

Cameron has announced a scheme today for english-speaking lessons to Muslim women - denouncing the reality that many such women are not allowed out of the house unchaperoned, cannot speak english and thus are totally controlled by their husbands and declared that we must be:

"more assertive about our liberal values, more clear about the expectations we place on those who come to live here and build our country together and more creative and generous in the work we do to break down barriers". "This is Britain. In this country, women and girls are free to choose how they live,"

TW speaks - Cameron acts!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

a propos of some bits of the above..

Cameron has announced a scheme today for english-speaking lessons to Muslim women - denouncing the reality that many such women are not allowed out of the house unchaperoned, cannot speak english and thus are totally controlled by their husbands and declared that we must be:

"more assertive about our liberal values, more clear about the expectations we place on those who come to live here and build our country together and more creative and generous in the work we do to break down barriers". "This is Britain. In this country, women and girls are free to choose how they live,"

TW speaks - Cameron acts!

^ Indeed. Absolutely.

ACT, noun:
a pretense.
"she was putting on an act and laughing a lot"
synonyms: pretense, show, front, facade, masquerade, charade, posture, pose, affectation, sham, fake; informalput-on
"it was all just an act"

[Harry Genshaw]

I share some of your cynicism re Cameron, Spotty & indeed with most politicians but tbf, at least we're having the debate now and no longer avoiding the issue.