# Does Britain suck?



## Rhisiart (Feb 15, 2007)

Crime rates in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) have always equalled the USA with one notable exception; gun related homicide. This now seems to be changing, at least in the major English metropolitian areas.

Worse still, a recent United Nations report found Britain to be at the bottom of the table in terms of child well-being (poverty, abuse, teenage pregnancies and child related crime) - in many cases even worse than the poorest parts of America.

What is it about British society that is so rotten?


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 15, 2007)

Get rid of the Poms and your problem is fixed!

s


----------



## mw84 (Feb 16, 2007)

Despite all the bad stuff, I'm still proud to be British.


----------



## ora (Feb 16, 2007)

It does suck somewhat, hence me leaving  

I think that report was a bit dodgy though, as it was based on some odd factors. I have to say I'm very rarely proud of being British though, in no small part because the right seems to have appropriated patriotism. Whether its the crypto-racism of the Daily Mail or the outright racism and bigotry of people like the British National Party (our fascist party), it makes me want to be seen as a European not a Brit.


----------



## mw84 (Feb 16, 2007)

Defector!  When I said British, in reality I meant English. We're in a right state at the moment but I can't imagine myself living anywhere else, no matter how much pain she causes me. There are a lot worse countries to live in.

Where are you living now Ora?


----------



## ora (Feb 16, 2007)

Hi mw,

I'm living in Switzerland, working for one of the international organisations, so am nominally working for the state, at least the British government pays my salary! 

I never used to imagine living abroad, but its a pretty eye opening experience, extra perspectives on your own culture and that of others. I'd recommend it for a spell if you get the chance. The bonus here is the work is in English so I only have to use my terrible french in bars etc.

I guess I'll end up back in the UK at some point, but I have to say I'm not in a hurry, or at least am open to other alternatives. Maybe I can try out my Brit accent in the US or something


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

Yes, Britain does suck, it's not functioning as a democracy anymore and it's high time we ditched it. The UK doesn't seem capable of tackling crime, from petty crime to violent crime, while creating more and more legislation that infringes on civil liberties. We also seem to have let illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction slip through the net.

We'd all live in fairer, freer, more prosperous nations if we repealed the Acts of Union and created new modern European states accountable to their citizens.


----------



## ora (Feb 16, 2007)

Monktus - I'm with you up to the Acts of Union bit. I have no imperialistic desire to keep Scotland with England, but i think the countries do benefit from one another on many levels. Perhaps an adjustment to something the Scots felt was more equal, but I'd hate to see us cut our ties entirely. We need each other, be it for social or political reasons, and would be less apart.

One good part of the idea though, we could make you take Blair and Brown back!!


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

We don't want Blair and Brown either ora. Bear in mind that breaking up the union doesn't mean living in isolation. Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland would all remain within the EU and John Reid's visions of barbed wire and passports at the border are ludicrous (not to mention contrary to European law). While the EU isn't perfect either, as European citizens we're free to live, work and trade anywhere we want, and that wouldn't change in the event of the UK dissolving.


----------



## reed (Feb 16, 2007)

Hey, this all sounds like France. At least this is one of the up and coming election debates....crime, immigration, etc..
  Did you know that one of the largest influx of immigrants to France in the EC come from Britain. More an affair of good stock options, cash flow and taking over the place then economical/political problems like in Eastern Europe(Polish plumbers and Rumanian Tinkers, for example, although the eldorado for these folks, amongst others, is still the UK). 
  One only needs to look at realestate offices in Bergerac or Brittany or Province. They are all in English now. Direct flights from London to Pau for example are cheaper then Paris-Pau. And so forth.  
  I don't see the UK in such a dark light (smart move to not be in the Euro sphere though), but then again I don't live there. I just visit. One thing is sure "certain" Brits are moving to the continent in numbers. Good luck. Last one turns off the lights.


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

I don't see immigration as a problem reed. Scotland especially needs skilled workers, as does the rest of the UK, and those coming over from Poland, Lithuania and other countries are valued by our employers because of their strong work ethic. I was discussing this on another forum and somebody jokingly suggested swapping Britain's working class for Poland's. He had a point though, I don't want to tar everybody with the same brush as I know it can be hard to find a job and most of those on benefits need the help, but we have far too many lazy swines in the UK living off the state. 

The things that will make me leave the country if they get worse are the erosion of civil liberties and high taxation for little in return. I view the dissolution of the UK as the best solution to these issues however I'm quite willing to jump ship and move to Ireland in the meantime.


----------



## reed (Feb 16, 2007)

monktus
  I don't see the immigration side either. I was trying to illustrate why folks are leaving the UK...whereas those from Eastern Europe and elsewhere are breaking their nuts to get in. This is a political debate here in France, thats all. I come from a country built on immigration so I have nothing to say. What I find amusing is the number of Brits "fleeing" their country.
  Ireland is very "in" for young French workers, by the way. Good pay, less taxes (compared to here), great people. Like in Scotland and Wales.
  I suppose the grass is always greener on the otherside of the fence. We all are tempted to push off and try someplace "better." 
  Not always easy. Cheers.


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

Ah I see, sorry I misunderstood you there.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 16, 2007)

The problem is we're too entwined with Europe, and thus wasting our money.  It also doesn't help that Blair prefers to help other countries and not England.

Aside from that its a pretty nice country to live in, especially if your in the country.


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

Just to remind you MrTAToad that UK != England. However much I dislike Blair and his administration, he is still Prime Minister of the UK, not England. Once the union is dissolved then I'm sure England could try and pull out of the EU if it wanted to, however it would be incredibly complicated and costly, and would basically be fiscal suicide.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 16, 2007)

Last time I looked, he was still the Prime Minister of England.  He's also the PM of the rest of the UK (unfortunately).

Note that England, excludes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

United Kingdom (aka Great Britain) includes Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

You don't have to lecture me on the differences MrTAToad, I'm well aware of them. My point was that you appeared to use England interchangeably with Britain, which is incorrect of course, however I didn't realise you meant England specifically, apologies.

Out of interest, what do you mean exactly by Blair preferring to help other countries and not England?


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 16, 2007)

> You don't have to lecture me on the differences MrTAToad, I'm well aware of them


Good to hear   Many people seem to get the terms confused, for some reason.  Mind you, it could get even more confusing if the Cornish people decided to seperate from the Union.  They would probably start slapping on extra taxes for cream teas...



> however I didn't realise you meant England specifically, apologies


No problem - I only really know what he does here, and not north or west of the borders 

By helping other countries, I mean Africa and other third-world countries.  Whilst money should be given, it could do with being cut, and used here (the UK, that is) - replacing council houses, rejuvenating areas, improving road and rail, NHS etc etc.  Charity should begin at home.


----------



## monktus (Feb 16, 2007)

I liked your cream teas comment. I don't agree with you on cutting aid though. After all, most of the problems in Africa were caused by Britain and other former colonialist countries. If anything we should be cancelling more debt, doing more trade and giving more aid, however if we didn't have to pay for the likes of Trident and Iraq, then the government would have more money to spend on things like more social housing (which we badly need).


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 17, 2007)

Yes, cancelling all debt would help - and something that should be persude.  However, only small loans should allowed to be borrowed, unless proper economic measures are taken to stop corruption.

Whilst we may have started problems there, we cant be responsible for their current state.


----------



## sgould (Feb 17, 2007)

If you count the Cornish as foreign, then I've already emigrated!  In fact I was born "overseas"  

Well, over the Tamar anyway....

My wife was born in Aden, and is only entitled to a British passport by reason of her parents being British.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 17, 2007)

British political and geographical nomenclature has always been confusing (for Brits as well as outsiders).

Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales

United Kingdom = Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Great Britain is the geographical and political name for the island lying north of France and east of Ireland. The island has never officially been called &#8216;England&#8217;, although people around the world seem to think it is.

England is the largest political unit within the UK. It has 80% of the British population and is also the home of the British parliament.

Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or UK for short). He is not the Prime Minister of England, as no such post exists (nor is there such a thing as an English passport). 

The English Parliament, established by Simon de Montfort in the 13th Century, was dissolved in 1707 and a new Great Britain parliament was formed following the union between England and Scotland (Wales had already been annexed by England).

The Scots and Welsh have an unfortunate habit of criticising and berating the English, but when faced with the option of independence from the UK they get very frightened and hang onto England&#8217;s mother strings for dear life.

I think Monktus will know what I mean. It must be very frustrating for a Scot to want independence for his country when his fellow compatriots lack the courage to make it happen.

Incidentally, the current social problems in Britain are by no means unique to England. Scotland and Wales have their share of deprivation and crime too.


----------



## Ferdinand (Feb 17, 2007)

The reason people call the UK "England" is because it's the biggest part. Like you would say: "Were you ever in England?, it's such a great country!", but then you would also say: "I was in Scotland, a small country". Even though they're not countries you still call them countries. Dunno why though... But that GB doesnt include Northern Ireland the UK does, is new to me.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 17, 2007)

Ferdinand said:


> ..even though they're not countries you still call them countries. Dunno why though...


Yes, it is a conundrum. When someone in our local pub refers to _this_ country, I never know whether they mean Wales or Great Britain. A bit confusing really.



Ferdinand said:


> But that GB doesn't include Northern Ireland the UK does, is new to me.


See my passport.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 17, 2007)

Countries should be run like countries - provide a service (or many) and make a profit from the purchase of said services.  That way there would be no national debt - some money would be saved for any national emergencies, some would be saved for a future time, and a little for any overseas projects,  and the rest would be re-invested back into the country.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 17, 2007)

Speaking of money, the Bank of Scotland prints its own notes which I find very odd. 

The Welsh would get a lot more respect if they printed their own as well, maybe on locally supplied stock, smelling of leeks.

btw Just as the Scots "lack the guts" to leave the United Kingdom, the UK itself lacks the guts to leave the EU despite bitching about it on every occassion. Are the Europeans ever so unpolite as to express the opinion that they made a mistake letting the British in?


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 17, 2007)

We all know Herr Blair would love to the UK to conpletely join the EU, so he's not likely to want to leave.  It would take something like UKIP or possibly the Conservatives (with a bit of pressure).  It should also be noted that if/when we do start the leaving process, the EU will make it as difficult as possible - probably with heavy financial 'costs' - after all, they wouldn't want _anyone_ to leave...

It would probably take a few years to get back the losses made - but after that financial stability should return.


----------



## monktus (Feb 17, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> Speaking of money, the Bank of Scotland prints its own notes which I find very odd.
> 
> The Welsh would get a lot more respect if they printed their own as well, maybe on locally supplied stock, smelling of leeks.
> 
> btw Just as the Scots "lack the guts" to leave the United Kingdom, the UK itself lacks the guts to leave the EU despite bitching about it on every occassion. Are the Europeans ever so unpolite as to express the opinion that they made a mistake letting the British in?



As does the Royal Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale, it's one of the things that Scotland retained when it formed a union with England, along with its legal and education systems, and the Church of Scotland.

It's mostly the "Little Englanders" that complain about the EU, there's a silent majority that are quite happy with it. Of course it's not perfect but I think a lot of people forget how useful EU membership is and that it would be disastrous to leave.

Also, we have "completely" joined the EU, the UK is a full member, we're just not in the Eurozone (which is a shame).


----------



## reed (Feb 17, 2007)

The UK/Blair (here we go again) should never have sucked-up to G.W.Bush. Period. Just a little detail. 

An aside....

 I still have a Scottish pound note from long ago. In 1973 when I was in London (having spent a couple of months in Scotland) no pub would take Scottish Pounds as legal tender for a pint. I had to keep the last one as a fond memory of how Scottish Pounds were treated by the English. And yes the answer is....I blew the rest when I got back to Preswick, via Glasgow for my flight back to NYC. Good fun....if my memory serves me right.

  No, I think there will always be a debate with you folks about your countries and how you have all been treated by the English and so forth. This is universal. I think the UK is just as "difficult" as any other country with the exception of the Sudan and Bermuda.

  Good luck and I hope you remain friends. Except during the Six Nation Rugby Tour, of course.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 18, 2007)

I am as guilty as anyone of going off the subject here.

From the BBC news web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6366255.stm 

Just another example of Stupid Britain.

God help us.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

rhisiart
  A very sorded story that unfortunatly happens everywhere. Cruelty to children is so sick one doesn't know how to react to these cretin adults who do such horrors. Vomiting for starters. In France they call such situations..."Zola"...seeing how he wrote so much about the misery in French society during his epoch. 
 SIGH.

On the lighter side: Great match Galle/Ecosse (Wales/Scotland). If England plays like they did against Italy, the French will walk all over them. Viva le Rugby.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

> there's a silent majority that are quite happy with it


And your source is ?


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

MrTAToad, exactly how old are you?

Can you remember the disastrous economic hole Britain had dug itself into after the war? Britain had long relied on its ability to monoplise trade with its Empire to prop up its decrepid industries. Once it lost the Empire and actually had to compete it fell flat on its face.

Only by entering and getting access to the European market and subsequently reforming itself (plus discovering North Sea oil) did it get back to the relative prosperity it enjoys today.

For the sake of Britain I hope your silly prejudices never take hold in main stream politics. You may be dragging the chain in Europe to the annoyance of all the other countries, but without Europe you may as well be dragged out into the Atlantic and sunk. 

Not such a good move as the oil slick from your fast food would be a major ecological disaster washing up on the shores of Brittany for months.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

> Can you remember the disastrous economic hole Britain had dug itself into after the war?


Nope - not that old.  However, I do believe the loan repayments to America
were rather steep, and we've only just finished paying them.

Are you a native of the UK - if so, you would know how much we pay into the EU and how little we get out of it ? Or another hysterical person from the continent ?


----------



## monktus (Feb 18, 2007)

I don't mean to be offensive here, but this is exactly the "Little Englander" attitude I was talking about. Britain both pays into the EU as it is a comparitively rich country, and receives funds for specific projects such as regional development, although not as much as it used to. IIRC, it also gets a special rebate that Thatcher negotiated in the 80s. We actually get a lot of concessions to keep us happy, and that's why there is sometimes resentment from other EU countries.

I for one am quite happy for some of my taxes to go to helping to develop the economies of our new partners in the likes of Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria. We've done well out of all the skilled labour that comes over to work in our country because the natives are too lazy. 

As I've also said previously, the EU is not perfect of course. Scotland especially gets a raw deal over fishing, and there are many other inneficiencies and problems that are a nuisance, however it is a small price to pay for being part of the world's largest free trade area.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

where is Bbloke when you need him? 
Keynes said "nothing is free," or was it Milton Friedman? One thing is sure the UK is always going to pay. But don't worry...the USA is paying hard cash now and for the future....not futures. It will get even better "all the time" as the Beatles once sung. Chuck rocks at yourselves....the Chineses are lapping it up.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

I am neither British nor European but am well aware that Britain does well out of the EU. It is Germany that has to do most of the heavy lifting and France that sucks up most of the agricultural subsidies. Not that any of the many English farmers I have met, ever complained about the subsidies *they* got.

As monktus has rightly stated, a lot of money goes to improve the poorer countries in Europe which is an excellent idea and has stabilised governments and economies throughout the region. Those countries are British customers so the benefit comes full circle.

If you studied British history you will know the enormous amount of money and human lives it has wasted in European wars. To spend only a fraction of that in ensuring Eurpean peace seems an excellent investment.

But then small minds are ever self obsessed and short sighted.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

Not to mention wars in Ireland, South Africa and other interesting far away places. English history is well read and understood. But you are not alone. The only thing now is you are paying the price. It was good THEN...."it no good now." The City is doing very well (may well out-do Wall Street) but who will run the show in a few years? 
  European peace is now and forever. The wars are over. What is not at peace is ECONOMICAL peace.
  One only invests if one can get a return. Period.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

I certainly have studied British history, which does seem to be missing from todays school time-table.  Indeed, the very city I live in was founded by the Romans - and the city walls are still here - unfortunately messed up by the Victorians, but you cant have everything.

In addition, when Shippams left, an archaeological was performed when the building demolished - apparently the finds were quite interesting.

A lot of the resentment comes from the fact that the EU is basically corrupt and undemocratic.  CAP is a fertile area for corruption and mis-managment.

And then you've got the weird EU rules (or would have if we had decided these rules were enforcable) :

Bananas must not bend abnormally
Bananas should be at least 5.5in long and 1.05in round
Peaches below 2.2in diameter must not be sold between July and October
Carrots must be 0.75in wide, apart from baby carrots

I see nothing but trouble with the EU - whilst it may not lead to a war, but it could lead to some pretty tense situations.  And if you cant see that, then you are more short-sighted than Mr Magoo.

England would be much better outside the EU, both financially and politically.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

"England would be much better outside the EU, both financially and politically."

Fantasy. Pure fantasy.

AS for the rest I think the problem you have is Europe is metric and the English despite supposedly having converted, true to form haven't finished the job. You wouldn't know how big your fruit was as long as it was duely processed to remove all flavor and nutrition.

"the EU is basically corrupt and undemocratic"

Bit rich coming from a country that still doesn't elect its upper house and has a first past the post voting system that ensures what voting does take place is totally distorted. And for how many years had the Queen and her family surreptitiously exempted themselves from paying taxes, despite being the richest family in the land?

But then these are the "Natural" forms of corruption and undemocratic government!


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

MrTAToad,

  Being an American I won't jump anymore into this Brit debate (although I find it amusing). All I can say to you is, living in France for a number of years, the French think exactly like you. Believe me. Brussels, for them is it numero uno ballbuster (see the famous cheese debate).....except when the cash (from the EC) comes in to "help" certain farms or other structures.
  On one hand one does not want to be ruled or dictated by Brussels but at the same time one looks for a certain aid when things go wrong (especially in  agriculture). It's a tough nut to crack.
  One thing is sure... it costs a lot of shillings.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

The CAP is crap. The only worse case of agricultural protection is Japan's. A close third is America's.

All of these plus the innumerable imitators in Korea, China, India etc have had an horrific effect on world trade and the economic plight of the poor nations. 

Typically the exploiting rich countries make a great deal of how they offer "Aid" to the poorer countries, which is only a fraction of the damage they do to them with their agicultural subsidies.

Like raining bombs on them, then tossing them a box of band aids.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

you forgot Corsica rubaiyat.
  And no...band aids first....THEN the bombs. Big difference.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

Corsica has a separate agricultural policy?

The band-aids thing reminds me of how the Americans were dropping *both* cluster bombs *and* food parcels and toys for the kids on the Afghanis. The Afghanis didn't know whether to run out and catch the things or hide in the cellar.

Should have dropped Happy Meals on the Taliban. That way they would end up being too fat to fight.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

The Queen has agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992.  We are working on getting the Lords at least partially elected.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)




----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

> Should have dropped Happy Meals on the Taliban. That way they would end up being too fat to fight.


Have you seen the Top Gear episode where the team (The Hamster, Captain Slow and Clarkson) is in American.  If you haven't - well, I wont spoil it for you...



> All I can say to you is, living in France for a number of years, the French think exactly like you


Indeed - France was one of two countries that voted against a constitution.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

Hmmm, from memory someone let the cat out of the bag in the early 90's. By coincidence not long before HRH suddenly decided to do "the right thing".

So when exactly do you plan on approximating a real democracy? Or is this like metric conversion, you never quite get around to it?


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

"Have you seen the Top Gear episode..."

No but I enjoyed The Onion's front cover at the time of Bush's first victory. 

They had Serbian troops maintaining peace and order in Washington s


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

Whilst metric conversion was proposed mid 19th century, its the implementation thats been poorly thought out - what should be done is allow metric and imperial measurements to be used interchangeable - unfortunately, because using imperial measurements is illegal (for certain things), it causes a backlash, especially when the older generation has trouble using the system.

To approximate a real democracy, you need to able to allow the population to control (or at least guide) all governmental policies.  But it wont come about because the government is both afraid of the general populous and contemptuous of it.  Which is why proportional representation is disliked.

We wouldn't know what would happen if we left - but the only way out would be to leave.



> No but I enjoyed The Onion's front cover at the time of Bush's first victory.


Yes, it was good 

As an aside, who provides the voices for George "Dubya" Bush amd Dick Chaney (the loveable little troll) ?


----------



## monktus (Feb 18, 2007)

We do have PR for elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland though, including local council elections now (in Scotland at least).


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa all went metric about the same time as Britain and got the job over and done with a long time ago. I believe it saves a year and half of schooling, which is better spent on other matters.

There are a lot better methods than straight proportional representation. If you saved that year and a half of schooling and were less parochial you could study up on them.

Either way actually allowing a vote is always the first step away from a corrupt and undemocratic regime, or is that too "European" ?


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

1. Happy meals on the Talibans. Check.
2. Dick Cheney needs no voice. He needs a colonic. Check.
3. Tony the phony bent over. Check
4. Real democracy. Iran? Israel? Check.
5. Pubs use to close at 10 o'clock in Scotland. Check


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 18, 2007)

And I presume allowing no votes is two steps away from a dictatorship ?


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

Depends if you lived in Florida during the first Bush, Jr. election.


----------



## reed (Feb 18, 2007)

Forgot this rubaiyat

 Of course Corsica has a different status from the "metropole." Like all "islands" under French rule...be it Tahiti, Martinique, St. Pierre or wherever. Subsidies à go go, tax exemptions and State workers getting double pay. As starters. That's why they are corrupt...both with Paris and Brussels. They can't get enough. Only a few nut cases want independence.

But get back to the UK question guys. Rangoon, out.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

You get to vote for the European Parliament, that is if you bother.

The complaint that the Executive is unelected is a circular argument. 

You use it as an argument against a European constitution, which would give you the right to vote for the Executive. 

As a result you are insisting on an unelected Executive, so that you can lambast it for being undemocratic. 

etc etc.


----------



## monktus (Feb 18, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> There are a lot better methods than straight proportional representation. If you saved that year and a half of schooling and were less parochial you could study up on them.



Actually the Scottish Parilament is elected by the additional member system, which is a hybrid of FPTP and PR. I think it works quite well in that it's more representative, however it does pretty much require coalition (it was put in place to make it harder for the SNP to get a majority). The Scottish council elections are using Single Transferable Vote for the first time, not sure about Wales/NI.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 18, 2007)

We have several sophisticated voting innovations in the ACT. 

First is the secret ballot, developed in Victoria, which removed the bribery and corruption endemic in voting and now is virtually universal around the world.

Second is compulsory voting which avoids all possibilities of stacking and manipulation of votes.

Third is the preferential voting system, another Australian innovation, which means that a voter need not concern themselves their vote will be wasted because they chose a smaller political group. Basically it is an elimination system. The vote of failed candidates is redistributed to the next preferred candidate until one candidate achieves a majority.

Fourth is the rotating ballot paper which eliminates the donkey vote. No one candidate has all the ballot papers with their name at the top so gathering up the lazy (or donkey) vote.

Fifth is the absence of party names on ballot papers and the banning of political parties from approaching closer than 100m to voting booths. This (in theory) is to make voters research and make decisions based on the candidates' qualities. As I said this is the theory. The practice is different, people bring in their own "How to vote sheets" into voting booths. All the law can do is forbid them to leave them in the booths.

Sixth is the Hare-Clarke or multiple-candidate seat (invented in Tasmania) which is the ideal combination of proportional and representational voting. The pool of candidates is eliminated preferentially till the allocated 4-5 candidates is elected. This usually ensures you have a candidate who represents your view in your electorate. It also gives a much better chance for independents to get in.

This system has been put into effect to give the fairest and most representative system. We look on the disastrous and clumsy systems in place around the world and wince. Especially the American and British systems which supposedly are the homelands of democracy and instead are effectively "managed" democracies.

The only step we have not yet completed is the achieving of a republic and the elimination of the monarchy. This was mainly due to the macinations of our present prime Minister who made sure we had Hobson's choice when it came to the vote. 

Despite Australians' being overwhelmingly for a Republic, the vote was rejected because we were not offered the option of an elected President in the model of Ireland's President.

Does this give us better candidates or candidates who are not just rich or from elite groups? Can't say it succeeds 100% but it certainly works against the manipulations of the politicians and gives smaller parties and popular independents a chance.

Oh and I forgot the most important of all is the independent Electoral Commission. This ensures the electoral laws are enforced and gerrymanders are avoided by redrawing electoral boundaries within strict parameters as populations shift and grow. This is one "innovation" the Americans desperately need.

btw Any organisation or union can call on the Electoral Commssion to aid in the fair and correct running of their elections. Even smaller Pacific Nations are assisted in their own elections.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 19, 2007)

reed said:


> where is Bbloke when you need him?


Yes Bbloke, where are you? Our hour of need is present.



reed said:


> 1. Happy meals on the Talibans. Check.
> 2. Dick Cheney needs no voice. He needs a colonic. Check.
> 3. Tony the phony bent over. Check
> 4. Real democracy. Iran? Israel? Check.
> 5. Pubs use to close at 10 o'clock in Scotland. Check


Rock On Reed!



MrTAToad said:


> ... and then you've got the weird EU rules (or would have if we had decided these rules were enforcable) :
> 
> Bananas must not bend abnormally
> Bananas should be at least 5.5in long and 1.05in round
> ...


Jeez, have you seen the regulations British superstores, Tesco and Sainsburys insist on for their veg?



MrTAToad said:


> Have you seen the Top Gear episode where the team (The Hamster, Captain Slow and Clarkson) is in American.  If you haven't - well, I wont spoil it for you...


Yes a lot of fun, but I wonder how staged it was. And Clarkson is a bigot. I like Americans (except Dick Cheney of course).



rubaiyat said:


> We have several sophisticated voting innovations in the ACT.
> 
> First is the secret ballot, developed in Victoria, which removed the bribery and corruption endemic in voting and now is virtually universal around the world.
> 
> Second is compulsory voting which avoids all possibilities of stacking and manipulation of votes....


A great system.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 19, 2007)

> Jeez, have you seen the regulations British superstores, Tesco and Sainsburys insist on for their veg?


So what are they then ?

And if a few days time, Greenland will be leaving the EU - so it'll be interesting to see how they get on.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 19, 2007)

MrTAToad said:


> So what are they then ?


Try this.

P.S. I am with you a bit on the EU. I am pro-European, but CAP stinks to high heaven.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 19, 2007)

Thats to do with trading practices - a slightly different area, and which most companies suffer from.  At least the EU does force some good working practices - its just a shame everything else is so cack-handed.



> P.S. I am with you a bit on the EU.


Good to hear!


----------



## reed (Feb 20, 2007)

And to think you have problems with Tesco. Try Wal-Mart!!! I'd nuke them if I could. In fact I would nuke Malls in general. But I'm in an angry mood this evening. Sorry.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 21, 2007)

monktus said:


> ...there's a silent majority that are quite happy with it. Of course it's not perfect but I think a lot of people forget how useful EU membership is and that it would be disastrous to leave.
> 
> Also, we have "completely" joined the EU, the UK is a full member, we're just not in the Eurozone (which is a shame).



Not just happy with it  positively PRO! We should also be in the Eurozone. In fact, I believe that a "United States of Europe" is the way to go.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 21, 2007)

CaptainQuark said:


> In fact, I believe that a "United States of Europe" is the way to go.



That is going to be a much tougher call as the language and cultural divides between European countries is much deeper than say between U.S. States.

Take the Germans and Austrians who speak the same language but pretty well have nothing but contempt for each other.

Ofcourse there is the extreme Europhobia expressed by many British. Not having gone through what the other countries in Europe went though in the years prior, during and after WWII the British can't see the necessity of unity and compromise.

France and Germany are the core, having fought each other repeatedly over the previous 150 years. Netherlands and Belgium also can see the sense because they were trampled on each time their neighbors came to blows. The Eastern block knows one thing, they never want the Russians back and Spain, Portugal and Italy all had a decades long Fascist yoke.

Perhaps too many who object are taking the prosperity the EU brought for granted. Just ask the neighboring non-EU nations they desperately want to come in to sit around the nice warm EU hearth.

To build a European consciousness will take time, helped by some common enemy and more than the Eurovision song contest to bind them. 

In the 21st century huge economic blocks such as China/SE Asia, North America and Europe, all under threat from a massively expanding Muslim population with a chip on its shoulder, are truly going to make George Orwell's 1984 prescient in the extreme.

When global warming's consequences strike home there will be a lot of pain and blame going around as well.

Maybe *then* Britain might finally realise where its interests lie.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 21, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> ....take the Germans and Austrians who speak the same language but pretty well have nothing but contempt for each other...


What a difference it would have made to the world 60 years ago if this had been the case.



rubaiyat said:


> Of course there is the extreme Europhobia expressed by many British. Not having gone through what the other countries in Europe went though in the years prior, during and after WWII the British can't see the necessity of unity and compromise.


This 'Europhobia' is confined to the right wing Brits.



rubaiyat said:


> France and Germany are the core....


Only because right-wing Britain is just about anti-anyone. The 'Establishment' (i.e Royal Family/the hidden grey suits/Pinochet supporters) refuse to make any effort to try to influence the Franco-German axis.



rubaiyat said:


> Maybe ..... Britain might finally realise where its interests lie.


It doesn't have a clue. This island state is directionless. Short term wealth is its only raison d'etre.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 21, 2007)

> Not having gone through what the other countries in Europe went though in the years prior, during and after WWII the British can't see the necessity of unity and compromise.


I'm sure WW2 veterans would be happy to hear they didn't go through much...



> Just ask the neighboring non-EU nations they desperately want to come in to sit around the nice warm EU hearth.


The Republic Of Ireland are doing well, and they aren't in the EU.  It should also be noted that England has a better economy that most of the EU zone countries - making the need to join pretty well moot.



> Maybe then Britain might finally realise where its interests lie.


Yes, with Britian...



> This 'Europhobia' is confined to the right wing Brits.


Its more extensive than that.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 21, 2007)

Ireland is not in the EU???? 

I can see why this debate gets where it does!

Ireland has a huge debt of gratitude to the EU, which largely turned it into a modern success. England also owes its current good economy to Europe as well. You won't get anyone in business to back such a hare-brained scheme as to leave.

You failed to read what I wrote about the Europeans. 

It is not about who fought, the Europeans went through the terrible prewar years, the occupation and the destruction of the occupation and reoccupation and recovery afterwards. Some stayed in the clutches of the Soviets for a limited time. Austria got rid of them by the early 50's but only under dire penalties, the rest stayed under their thumb for another 45 years.

England had only to contend with air raids which lightened considerably towards the end of the war during which time most of the rest of Europe was being turned into rubble.

Much of the surviving population of that period in many European countries is made up of widows, many of them in Germany, Austria, Czechoslavakia and Poland endured mass rapes as the Russians advanced. 

Finland lost most of its male population of the time, alternately fighting the Russians and then the Germans. They suffered especially badly, as did the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland was mauled 3 times over, by the Germans coming and going and by the Russians.

Italy was in a total state of ruin. Spain had reached near starvation even though it largely kept out of it.

Most men not fighting were forced labourers for the Germans. Whole countries like Holland were ruined because Germany flooded the place as they left. Other countries like Norway and Poland had nearly every building and infrastructure blown up by the retreating Germans. 

They all did it tough. England was _relatively_ unscathed and it was possible to get away from the conflict whilst most Europeans had to live in it. Not to denigrate the effort of the soldiers involved but victory is sweet in contrast to the loss and reoccupation of many countries that meant the war did not end well for most.

Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Greece and Poland fought on for years. Spain and Portugal didn't get rid of their dictators till the 80's. The Eastern block lasted till the 90's. None of them have forgotten as much as the English have, what it all meant.


----------



## monktus (Feb 21, 2007)

MrTAToad said:


> The Republic Of Ireland are doing well, and they aren't in the EU.



If I used smilies I'd look for an incredulous one, I can't believe you're involved in a debate about the EU and come out with stuff like that.

Also, while nobody's doubting the hardship that British cities faced during World War II bombings, and the lives that were lost in combat, we did fare a lot better than most countries involved in the war, especially the likes of Poland. We were also much better off in the following decades.

It's insular attitudes that of the type we're seeing on this thread that are harming the UK, and I'm sorry to say it does seem to be a mainly English attitude. I'm really hoping that May 3 will be the start of some big changes for the UK.


----------



## reed (Feb 21, 2007)

Just a thought. United Europe. Why not. But outsourcing and de-localisation to Romania, Bulgaria, and Eastern Europe in general are making French workers (esp. the Unions) very worried, if not angry. Cheaper labor costs, etc.. The bosses are making record profits for investors but people are being chucked out of work here in droves.
  Don't forget, the United States is not always so united. We went through a major civil war, segregation and there are still counties where you can't get a drop of booze. In one State they want the 10 Commandments State Law. The list is endless.
 Now, Europe with all it's different kinds of cheeses, laws, history, legislations, culture etc. etc. Well.... as Charles de Gaulle once said concerning governing his own country.... "Vaste Programme!"
  And Turkey?

 I hear The UK is pulling out of Iraq. Good move.


----------



## monktus (Feb 21, 2007)

reed said:


> I hear The UK is pulling out of Iraq. Good move.



Yes, not a moment too soon. As for Turkey, I can't see them joining the EU anytime soon, or at all.


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 21, 2007)

> England was relatively unscathed and it was possible to get away from the conflict whilst most Europeans had to live in it


Unscathed - as in the continual air raids, sunk convoys etc etc ?



> I can't believe you're involved in a debate about the EU and come out with stuff like that


Yes, it was a bit wrong.  However, Greenland is certainly isn't - and they're doing okay.



> Just a thought. United Europe. Why not


Too corrupt; too totalitarian.  The member states are too different from each other.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 21, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> England had only to contend with air raids which lightened considerably towards the end of the war during which time most of the rest of Europe was being turned into rubble........England was _relatively_ unscathed .....none of them have forgotten as much as the English have, what it all meant.


I though the whole of Britain fought in WWII. I am surprised to discover it was only England. So my Welsh uncle who spent two years in captivity in Belsen didn't exist.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 21, 2007)

I'm feeling this thread is more and more about someone's personal prejudices, rather than the original idea of the thread.



rhisiart said:


> I though the whole of Britain fought in WWII. I am surprised to discover it was only England. So my Welsh uncle who spent two years in captivity in Belsen didn't exist.


Well said, rhisiart.



rubaiyat said:


> England had only to contend with air raids which lightened considerably towards the end of the war...
> 
> England was _relatively_ unscathed and it was possible to get away from the conflict whilst most Europeans had to live in it...
> 
> None of them have forgotten as much as the English have, what it all meant.



England (are we talking only about England or the whole of the UK this time...?) only had to contend with air raids?  Relatively unscathed?  I'm sure those who lived through the war would be interested to hear your views.  Coventry, for instance, was virtually destroyed.  And I'm there are those in more recent times (eg. living in Iraq) who might find your attitude about air raids curious too.  

True, the UK did not have to suffer occupation (although the Channel Islands were invaded) as many European nations did, and we should be thankful for that.  The Soviet Union really bore the brunt of a lot of the conflict, with far higher losses than anyone else.  But I also think you really do British people, servicemen and civilian alike, a massive disservice.  The RAF was virtually destroyed early on.  You might also remember the U-boats put the UK in serious danger.  Rationing was in place until the 1950s.

Have a look at World War II deaths by country.  The UK's military deaths (as a percentage) are on a par Poland and the USA, and more than France (which was indeed invaded), as far as Allies go.  For total deaths (including civilians), the UK lost 0.94% of its population, which was more than Denmark, Malta, Norway, and Spain (also more than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA, if including non-European countries), while being at a similar level to those suffered by Belgium, France, and Italy.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 21, 2007)

Greenland has a population of under 60,000. Industries: Polar Bear & Seal flavored ice cubes. What are they exactly doing okay in? Danish welfare checks?

I think in your confusion you are actually thinking of Norway which is knee deep in North Sea oil.

You keep harping on about how corrupt and totalitarian Europe is. Based on what? and compared to what in Britain?

The same with comparisons of damage in WWII. Have you not seen what happened to virtually every city in Italy, Poland, Germany and Austria as well as the many French and Benelux cities and towns that were fought over in the close of the war. Even distant Belgrade was razed to the ground in air raids.

The Poms astonished me, when I was there, with their ignorance of anything to do with Europe. A sister of a friend of mine in Horsham politely asked me after I visited her the second time, where I had just been. I said Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm. She thought for a while and then said "Where are they?"

When the Germans laughingly refer to "Kleine Britannia" I think they must be referring to the thinking of the inhabitants. Didn't the Poms vote Rolf Harris as the most famous painter of all time?

Getting back to the future of the EU, I certainly hope they don't trap themselves into letting Turkey in. I like the Turks but there is just too much of a cultural and religious divide for Europe to be able to accomodate them. They are still bumping people off for talking about the Armenian holocaust. 

By the way the Armenian holocaust gave Hitler the idea he could get away with killing all the Jews. 

As has so frequently been quoted, he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. History is not multiple choice, nor will claiming you were asleep when they taught it going to let you off the hook when you stuff your lives up based on made up "facts".


----------



## bbloke (Feb 21, 2007)

Hmm, this thread seems to me to have deviated a little!  I think my reply is going to be a bit all over the place, as so many issues have been raised.

I think that no one is really in a position to lecture another country about the right way of doing things.  Every nation has its faults and its strong points.  I think it is one thing to criticize a particular government or particular policy, but I would never want to cross the boundaries and start labelling a nation's people.  That, to me, just displays prejudices...

"The English" (just the English, not the whole UK?) have been criticized for being "true to form" and not managed to switch to the metric system (the USA has not switched either, though...).  At the same time, Australia is one of the few countries to drive on the left still (just like the UK), so perhaps they are quite slow really and need to "get with the program" to catch up with the majority of the world too.   

Although the current British government receives a fair amount of criticism for aligning itself too closely with Bush in recent years (fair enough), some Australian politicians seem very similar to Bush too.  The possibility of preemptive strikes against neighboring countries and John Howard basically using a scare-mongering tactic of saying an Obama victory in the US would be a victory for terrorists all seem rather familiar...

I think we'd struggle to find a nation that has a clean past!  Australia knew in advance about Indonesia's plan to invade East Timor, an invasion which effectively led to  genocide (deaths on a large scale, attempts to wipe out a language, forced sterilization, and more).  Australian politicians effectively helped Indonesia and Australian troops even went as far as to train Indonesian squads in less conventional matters (eg. "hostile interrogation," as they called it...)...

Until the 1980s (between 1973 and 1982, depending on one's criteria), Australia had the White Australia policy, where non-white immigration was restricted.  It is quite shocking, in my view, for an allegedly modern Western democracy to be actively discriminating against people on the grounds of race until relatively recently.  Then there is the "Stolen Generation," where (allegedly up to 1969) Aboriginal children were  removed from their families in order to bring them up in institutions, seemingly due to ideals originating in racial prejudice.  Quite probably linked in with such concerns of racism, there is also a lot of scare mongering about immigration in Australia.  The Children Overboard Affair was one such case, where politicians invented claims that refugees were throwing children overboard from a ship to try to force the Australian authorities to collect them.  The Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, designed to detain immigrants, caused a lot of controversy in recent years and now has been closed down.  I can remember hearing stories of riots and hunger strikes, with people complaining about conditions.  There have been allegations of human rights abuses, including cover ups of child abuse.

I'm certainly not slagging off Australia or Australians.  I'm just saying that, yes, the UK does have its negative side, but so does anywhere else.  I'm also concerned about where the boundaries lie between singing-a-nation's-praises and jingoism.

So I think we'd be hard pressed to find a model that a nation should follow or aspire to.  Back to the question: Does Britain suck?  Well, there are things I like about the country and things I don't like about it.  The UK used to be a much safer place than, say, the USA, but, if my memory is correct, the statistics now show that people are more likely to be the victim of all sorts of crimes in the UK, including (non-fatal) violent crimes, than people are in the USA.  The exceptions are things like rape and gun-related crime, where things are far worse in the USA.  I believe the UK is in some ways a bit of a hot spot for crime within Europe.  So, I would say crime is becoming more and more of a problem and people are really feeling it.  

For more information, see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2006747,00.html

or

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html

Regarding the Union, personally, I would like it if the UK were to stay united and we could maintain the diversity, but I don't think anyone should be "forced" into that position.  If Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland wanted to leave, I think that would be a decision for the particular population, rather than the rest of the UK trying to force them to stay.  I would prefer to see a UK that (fairly and properly) included the diversity of the different countries, but that's just my opinion.

The EU, like anything, has its pros and cons and I think it is a very good thing overall.  The UK is dependent upon trade with the EU.  As with anything, there are occasional problems that need dealing with honestly.  It is not the case that either the UK or the EU is perfect.  I've met people in the UK with quite anti-European prejudices, but then I've also met Continental Europeans with some quite irksome prejudices about the UK too.  Also, I don't think it is as simple as saying both sets of prejudices are caused by people in the UK alone, either.

So, the UK strongly benefits from the EU, and that should not be quietly forgotten, but then the sceptics should not be ignored either.  De Gaulle vetoed the UK's entry into the EEC in 1963, which seemed a fairly hostile act.  If I remember rightly, he also held the UK largely responsible for France being invaded during World War II, which I found amazing.  My point is that politics can be complex and involve human frailties, it is not as simple as the idea that everyone gets fed up with the UK somehow being anti-European or the like.  There are times when the UK drags its feet a bit, sure, but other nations do too, including core nations such as France.  There are also times in which the UK's treatment does not always appear even-handed (perhaps many populations will feel this about their own nations too).  Remember Chirac making comments at a summit?

Taken from the BBC:





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> "French President Jacques Chirac is reported to have cracked jokes about British food at a meeting with the German and Russian leaders."
> 
> "French newspaper Liberation says Gerhard Schroeder and Vladimir Putin laughed and joined in the banter."
> 
> ...



How exactly will this sort of behavior convince Euro-sceptics in the UK that the EU is welcoming?  

Insulting one group is not a mature way of dealing with differences.  Like it or not, we share the world with people who do not share our views, and mocking one group will not encourage communication and cooperation.  That is: there are two sides, we shouldn't just ride roughshod over one group's concerns.  We will not end up with amicable solutions if either the pro-Europeans or Euro-sceptics feel marginalized.  I'm not saying that the UK should keep out of a biased Europe or something (as that is not my view), my point is that it is not as simple as "Europe: good, UK: bad."

We talk of the British right.  On the other hand, the rise of the far right has become more of a concern on Continental European soil than on UK soil, although there is concern in the UK too.  Remember Le Pen doing alarmingly well in the elections a few years ago? Or the rise of the right even in the very liberal country of The Netherlands?  Anti-Semitism, while still a problem in the UK, tends to be higher in other countries in Europe.  This is despite the UK being so "unscathed" by the war...

As for democracy, I really don't think any one country has the right to lecture another on the matter.  All democratic systems seem to have their pros and cons and it is genuinely difficult to know which systems work best.  As an example of one gray area, compulsory voting will increase voter turnout, but it also turns a citizen's right into a demand from the State.  Which is ultimately better will become a matter of opinion.  The thing that does concern me is how the current British government has been clamping down on civil liberties all over the place (eg. RIP Act), but, then again, that seems to be happening in many countries across the Western world...

With regards to the monarchy, I think people should be a bit cautious about making statements about the monarchy leeching off of the public.  If my memory is correct, we receive far more from the monarchy than they receive from the public purse.

Civil List:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> ...in 1760 the new King, George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, funded by taxation....
> 
> ...In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately *£184.8 million for the Treasury* in the financial year 2003/04, whereas *parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million* during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments....



If you want a breakdown of the figures, see: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4971.asp   Perhaps the Queen should be asking that the tax level be reduced and set inline with the rest of the population's top tax rates... in the interests of fairness, after all.   

In short, there are things that bother me about the state of things in the UK.  There are also things that bother me about the state of affairs in other countries.  No country is perfect, far from it.  Do I hold up one country as a model we should aspire to?  No.  Do I hold up one country as a model we should avoid?  No.  I think there are aspects from different countries which I admire, and, likewise, there are things about the UK I admire; no one country "has everything sorted out."  I think any people/countries sweepingly pronouncing they are better than another group basically leaves themselves very vulnerable indeed...


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 21, 2007)

Yes I was referring to England. Wales and Scotland were mostly out of range and/or not primary targets. Isn't this whole notion of bloody mindedly dumb nationalism an English one anyway?

Fascinating that you refer to that chart to "prove" your point and pick out the under 1% fatalities of Britain as significant. Compared to the over 16% for the Poles, and the double figures for Germany, the Baltic countries, Russia etc. Plenty of the other countries also had much more significant casualties than Britain.

Put on top of that the privation and mass destruction of Europe. 

I don't think the British were eating horsemeat mixed with sawdust or their women selling themselves for food after the war.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 21, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> Isn't this whole notion of bloody mindedly dumb nationalism an English one anyway?


Evidently not........  



> Fascinating that you refer to that chart to "prove" your point and pick out the under 1% fatalities of Britain as significant. Compared to the over 16% for the Poles, and the double figures for Germany, the Baltic countries, Russia etc. Plenty of the other countries also had much more significant casualties than Britain.


If you actually listened to what other people say every once in awhile, rather than just assuming you are always right and mocking others who disagree with you, you'd see what I and others were actually saying.   I'll be off now, I think this "discussion" is far too intellectual for me...


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 21, 2007)

You won't get me defending our PM or some of his nasty tactics to stay in power. I wish people were less polite and just called the lies for waht they are. But I know from being on these forums that people will "prove" the lie is fact because "everyone knows them to be true".

Nor will you get me taking the side of the White Australia Policy except to note that similar policies were in place in many other countries at the time. Also unfairly. Didn't the British have "No dogs and Chinese" signs in their colonies? 

Interesting to note what broke the policy though. It was the tour of the West Indies cricket team in the 60's, when many questioned why the Windies had to get a special "exemption".

The same with Aboriginal voting rights. We have an excellent record on universal sufferage and votes for women. Hardly anyone knew most Aborigines weren't on the census which is why they didn't have the vote and it was overwhelmingly corrected in a referendum soon after it came up.

A fair go is what most Australians demand and mostly give. Interesting to note about the abduction of Aboriginal children is what became of them. Most of the prominent and successful aborigines today were taken from their parents. Not that that justifies what the welfare organisations did, but it wasn't all bad. Now the policy has been completely reversed it turns out that child abuse is rampant in the aboriginal camps in Central Australia.

Over 25% of Australians are born overseas and we have done an excellent job of welcoming and accomodating the migrants into Australian society. 

May I say when I see the usual indignant objector to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Afghanis etc I am struck by how often they are an English migrant or ex NZ English migrant squatting up in Surfers Paradise as part of the white shoe brigade.

This was the mob our PM was pandering to to keep valuable Queensland seats. Looks like he will get his come uppance this coming election. Aussies have had jack of his lies and "patriotism".

Curious how the compulsory civic duty of voting is "wrong" but forceably being sent to kill others in the name of your country is "right". Or how the Russian, French and German skinheads are guilty of not paying their British franchise fees.

De Gaulle vetoed British entry into the EEC because he could see what a curmudgeonly bunch of spoilers they were. After all Britain had turned down membership before, only becoming interested when it saw how it was missing out on the European miracle. England even refused initially to play official international soccer because they were too good for everyone else (despite losing to South American teams).

Metrication is an obvious practical measure. Britain's recalcitrance on this issue is just symptomatic of its anti-European prejudices.

I agree that within the EU framework it may be sensible for Wales and Scotland to revert to their own nationalities and government if they so wish.

I agree that English cooking is *no* laughing matter. Although Margaret Thatcher being the only PM to have a disease (Mad Cow) named after her, is!

As for the Monarchy leeching off the public? Never! They stole all that wealth fair and square! Having to pay taxes on it is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 22, 2007)

rubaiyat said:


> The Poms astonish me, when I was there, with their ignorance of anything to do with Europe. A sister of a friend of mine in Horsham politely asked me after I visited her the second time, where I had just been. I said Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm. She thought for a while and then said "Where are they?"


Here I have to agree with you. Most 'Poms' are as intelligent as anyone else, but we do have a growing minority of citizens who are ignorant of just about anything around them. Sure all countries have them, but Britain has become a dunces paradise.

As far as WWII is concerned, Britain paid a very heavy price to assist in the freedom of Europe. Quantifying damage doesn't tell the full story. 

With reference to BBloke's comments about the stability of the UK, there is indeed concern in some quarters about the 'Balkinisation' of Britain. 

Scotland will eventually go it alone, I am sure of that. I do not think Wales will. This small little country is too geographically, economically and emotionally tied to England. 

Northern Ireland should be returned to its righful owners.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 22, 2007)

I am not belittling Britain's outstanding effort against Hitler. Nobody else stood up to him, except Britain's loyal Commonwealth members, who Britain just counted amongst her own statistics. That is until it came to working out who would pay for the struggle. PM John Curtin used to complain it would be cheaper to house all our troops in Tobruk in the best Cairo hotel.

What we were discussing was the attachment to the idea of a united Europe that would foreswear the use of wars to settle disputes. A break through idea after 1000s of years of conflict that resulted in the 2 most horrific wars ever.

Because the mainland Europeans had gone through comparatively worse than the British (which by any measure I think can easily be established) and had the new Soviet threat on their borders or actually occupying them, they can plainly see the necessity of the EU.

Many British deny they are Europeans and seem to have learnt nothing or forgotten what little they had learnt. It is a small world view that is absolutely astonishing. 

The girl I spoke of, who knew nothing of Scandinavia, is actually first generation English. Her parents were Italian immigrants, yet Europe, except for bits of Italy are outside of her consciousness. 

My kids are like that. They like to travel and have been more places than most their age, but they have no interest in the context or meaning of all the places they go to. Nothing exists beyond a few years of their birth and their circle of friends. 

It is a view of the world through the wrong end of the telescope.


----------



## Graviton (Feb 26, 2007)

No


----------



## reed (Feb 26, 2007)

"from Land's End to John o' Groats?"

This is fun...

  "Your Roman-Saxon-Danish-Norman English." Daniel Defoe (1701)

 See you all at the Pub at 7 o'clock. Cheerio.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Mar 27, 2007)

Yesterday morning Graviton held a press conference at 7:00 a.m. to discuss the topic of whether Britain sucks. After twenty eight minutes of deep debate between collegues and friends he responded with a absolute, "No". The answer is controversial at best and journalists from various news outlets are contacting him for a followup. An official spokesman explained to the British Sizzler, "We expect Graviton to make another appearance in the next few days. Hopefully he will be able to clarify his response". This has been an Apeintheshell News Alert.

Coming up next: How high can a bear jump on a trampoline? Found out after these messages.


----------



## frankrod1 (Jan 14, 2008)

Sorry blokes, but isn't this a Tech support page?


----------



## lurk (Jan 14, 2008)

Nope, it is in Bob's place, the old cafe where all the non-technical stuff goes.

You could discuss belly button lint in here and everybody would be just fine with it.


----------



## frankrod1 (Jan 14, 2008)

Sorry then. New at this.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 15, 2008)

I've always wondered where belly button lint comes from...


----------



## Rhisiart (Jan 15, 2008)

CaptainQuark said:


> I've always wondered where belly button lint comes from...


Ouch!


----------



## rubaiyat (May 19, 2008)

I know that this thread has gone dead but if you missed it, Australia threw out Bush's "deputy" and trashed his conservative Liberal Party in a resounding vote in the last elections.

All it took was all uncertainty about his economic credentials and promises of low interest rates to be removed and his statements on Iraq and the War on Tourists to be  proven as false as his other assertions.

If anyone thinks that I am a one eyed Labor supporter, I am not. I think I only ever voted for them once in the 70's when Whitlam came in. I am just against bad governments, particularly if they are massive hypocrites and liars, which unfortunately they all become after being in power too long.


----------



## reed (May 31, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGVqMK_wZtA&feature=related

 The UK? What about Western Europe in general? or Norway for that matter. The Occident. Jersey City and so on and so forth. Hang in..... this thread is not dead yet. I think. Rounds for everybody.
  Forget the politics. All the best.


----------

