Re: RE: Mooseman
>What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result?
What is the point of a referendum if some chancers are going to fabricate a pretend mandate to chop our own feet off?
1172 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
>... is that they admitted to it.
We're accustomed to TV/Movie spooks being cavalier and self-serving, but, in the real world "to live outside the law, you must be honest". More to the point, if you're going to be professionally-dishonest, you need legal backing.
If a project blows up in your face (or in someone else's street) you'd better be sure you played by the rules.
>Dejanews was the Google of the 90s
For those that knew about it. I remember leaving my (IT) boss gobsmacked, that I could answer a previously-intractable problem, with a simple DN search.
A few years later, in another job, I was gobsmacked by a 'senior' programmer, who had never heard of Usenet.
>if the UK government hadn't intervened in 1990 to stop the roll-out
They didn't intervene to stop the roll-out. They intervened to stop the monopolisation of cable/TV, by BT.
BT were perfectly free to roll out cable - they just weren't free to impose a monopoly for TV access. When BT were told that, they lost interest.
> now that a bunch of bureaucrats have passed a resolution.
Just because you want to throw a couple of hate words into your piece, doesn't absolve you of logical inexactitudes.
Bureaucrats might implement a resolution - they don't pass one. It was elected politicians who passed this resolution. The clue is in the word 'Parliament'.
>Ever since the EC was turned into the EU the backlash has been growing
The 'backlash' has nothing to do with Maastricht. We're suffering a bout of extremism, because of the economic shock of 2008. Just as the Great Depression fostered all sorts of extremism around the world, the 'Great Recession' is doing the same.
It only remains to be seen whether the original solution is repeated.
>Because when evidence is presented, then it is usually taken at face value unless there is some reason to doubt it.
What most people don't realise is that physical/technical evidence isn't just shovelled into the courtroom. All evidence is 'adduced' from human witnesses. It's their word that is being put into evidence - their word that this piece of stuff is what he says it is.
>manual counting, when used, customarily is done by teams of election judges representing at least two political parties. As in the UK, the procedure may be witnessed by independent (i. e., non-official) observers
That's not how it works in the UK. The counting is done by non-partisan officials. They are supervised by representatives of the parties.
Since when has the EU been in status quo?
The status quo was a system of negotiation, analysis and legislation - which we could influence (and in many cases, veto), from within. That some Europeans saw a federation as a far-distant objective was never a reality (and we could always have vetoed it, anyway).
Instead we're going to be subject to a bunch of rules we have no say in forming (not just from the EU).
>The EU doesn't want partnership, it needs victory.
Bollocks. Amid the petty posturing of Brexiteers, the EU have remained calm, quiet and undemonstrative. The worst they've done is to frown sadly at our childishness.
On the other hand, the EU has a responsibility to protect the interests of its remaining members. It has no responsibility to accede to the demands of a bunch of surly ex-members.
>I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty with us to continue partnership on this.
Do you understand rules? The EU has rules about dealings with third countries, one of which is about to be us. These rules preclude secure access to its systems (as any sensible entity would do).
After all, if the UK were to go ahead with its own system, would we give full access to Nigeria, on the basis that they were once part of the Empire?
>We're actually negotiating leaving the EU.
No. We're (feebly) negotiating the aftermath of leaving - trying to limit the damage. Different thing entirely.
>why would we pay a bill to leave the EU?
No. We aren't paying to leave. We're fulfilling longterm commitments (if we have any sense of honour left).
>No you bloody wouldn't, because if I want to publicise my cause by violent means I will just attack the police station
You have been conditioned into believing that 'terrorism' is confined to mad beardies with suicide belts. But there are more sophisticated terrorists about. Northern Ireland has seen many, many personal attacks on policemen/women - at their homes.
>Moving off world
Have you any idea of the energy requirements of moving even a fraction of the world's population off world? (Not to mention to budget for going somewhere else and surviving there.)
In any case, if we can't learn to live on this platform, how the hell can we learn to live on another?
>All, yes, all politicians are cut from the same cloth
They're cut from the same cloth you (and I) are.
Just as you may (occasionally) come across a good manager, there are also (occasionally) decent politicians. And every one of them went into their trade in the hope of doing some good.
The fact that they usually can't, is largely because we, the public, don't pay attention to the details; we only notice the bits that impinge on us (negatively). And it's always their fault.
But, however crappy our particular constituency MP behaves, we'll still vote for him (or abstain), lest the other lot get in.
There's something wrong with us, when we regard 6m sales (of a fairly expensive item) in a quarter - as some sort of failure.
These aren't things you should need to change often - if you even need one in the first place.
If companies can't make a living out of these sales, they deserve to disappear.
>Competition certainly provides more options, and it may depress prices and lessen the amount of price gouging, but it won't really keep them from ripping you off unless the competition is organically generated through the free market.
Donn, there is no such thing as a free market. I can't set up a telco; I can't afford it. It isn't free.
The existing big telcos inherited most of their cable runs. Many of the rest were subsidised by the gummint they now despise. I can't inherit anything (and I can't afford to bribe a congressman/senator - they're not free, either).
>Consumer demand is what drives growth, not competition.
Needs both. Without competition (or regulation) consumer demand is met at the lowest acceptable level/highest acceptable price. Without consumer demand, competition doesn't matter.
When they combine - then you're getting somewhere. Better product becomes affordable, driving demand, driving supply.
>anything you find on the internet is copyright protected unless specifically stated otherwise.
Just because the website claims its images are copyright-free, doesn't mean they really are. If there's a Creative Commons license, there'll be a link to the rules... which should be read and checked.
>If I go to your UK voting centre first I can just say that I'm you.
And run the risk of being arrested (because I've already voted). Is it worth it, punk?
This system has been in place for a century or more, and the combined proven instances of personation wouldn't elect a parish councillor.