Jump to content

L00b

Members
  • Content Count

    17,297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by L00b

  1. That it would. So imagine the relief when, last July, it was allocated €21.2bn in the next EU budgetary cycle to end 2027. Sure, EU27 universities will still accept wealthy UK students. To get back to the original point.
  2. Whether it is replaced or not, is of no further concern to the British.
  3. Since its creation in 1987, number of UK students who went through Erasmus: at least 200,000 by 2013 (fullfact.org) 36,700 in 2014 (britishcouncil.org info, Jan 2017) 40,000 in 2015-2016 (britishcouncil.org info, Jan 2017) 16,500 in 2017 (BBC Reality Check article, Oct 2020) But all you're really interested to argue here, is that it is right that opportunities provided by the likes of ERASMUS should be pulled from UK students. Right?
  4. The Tunisian in Nice yesterday did not. The Pakistani in Paris last September did not. The Sudanese in Romans last April did not. (etc) You post that disingenuous strawman, and then ask me if I'm serious? I have as much distaste for hard left apologists as for hard right racists. So try your uninformed rethoric on someone else: I'm not interested.
  5. "The wealthy" being, of course, that very 'class' who never needed FoM to live abroad and seize opportunities at any time, and won't notice its loss. To the exact contrary of (e.g.) working class kids who for 30-odd years could lift themselves up by their bootstrapping smarts, enrolling onto EU-funded uni courses abroad through Erasmus. No more such opportunities for them. So, no more FoM. Zero consequence for the 'wealthy' indeed. Yet plenty for the working class indeed. Hey-ho, 'tis the will of the people (so the wealthy said).
  6. Your point is odd, for someone who supposedly spent enough time there. It is valid, insofar as laicity is concerned: that secularism is drummed into everyone from birth, hardest of all throughout formative school years, and has been for generations (later-day terrorists like today's are not homegrown, they are recent arrivals who didn't go through these cultural formative years in France). It is invalid in respect of individuality, be it behavioural or 'being'. It is a shared cultural norm (one might even go so so far as to call it an article of faith, but not teological - if that makes sense). I'm not saying that you are defending hardline radical islam. I've clearly given you the benefit of the doubt in that respect: note the use of 'If' in my post. I'm not blind to xenophobia in France, either: I use the exact same debating shortcuts and broadbrushing that you do, in proportion, in counter-argument. When you decide to nuance your points further, I will happily reciprocate. As for racism being endemic in France, and more so than in the UK, clearly the last 5 years and crumbs must have passed you by. France didn't elect LePen (again) and didn't Frexit over (unfounded fears about-) immigration. Have you seen the look of your government's BNP-worthy rethoric and Patel's serial immigration policy attempts, lately? As a country, currently, you really have no lessons to give in that respect.
  7. Multiculturalism is working just fine, as attested by the normalised fusion of northern african and west european cultural references, backgrounds, people, etc. in popular French culture for very many years now. But it was certainly perceived as working better, when certain special interest groups were not pulling the blanket so hard and vociferously to themselves for special opening times at public pools, restriction of book choices in public libraries, special dispensations for faith...sorry, home schooling, etc. If you're supportive of accomodating fundamental/hardline Muslim requirements, I can easily understand how you see this Law project to be "aimed at Islam", and that you would see France's refusal to accomodate these requirements as exclusionary inflexibility making a failure of multiculturalism. It is nothing if the sort, of course. France is just reminding this strident proselyte minority, and any other would-be strident proselyte minority, that it's had enough of their noise: it is calling time on appeasement, and restating secular principles. If you see references to '1905' in whatever materials you happen to be reading about this Separatism Law project, then just pause for a minute to ask yourself how much of a problem "multiculturalism" and/or "Islam" had gotten to be for France that year, which saw the introduction of the "Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State" and which the Separatism Law project is all about. Yeah, that's right : not whatsoever. The hardline side of Islam is running smack against anticlericalist principles of the French Republic. That is where the main problem lies. That genie is new (relatively) to France, when Islam isn't at all, and the letting out is getting done by imams with an agenda (paid for by wahabites no doubt).
  8. Yes, fundies howls. At badly-drawn cartoons in a satirical magazine. Again. Note that I'm not counting Erdogan's howls today, at the follow-up badly-drawn cartoons. They depict him, not Mahomet. If by "Loi de separatism" you are referring to laicity (frequently dubbed 'secularism'), I haven't seen grandstanding, but a reaffirmation of this centuries-old constitutional principle, and its cross-compatibility with freedom of expression: By law, freedom of speech means any belief system, religious or otherwise, is fair game for satire. By law, laicity means no religion gets any treatment or attention from the State. Special or exceptional or otherwise: so far as the State is concerned, religion doesn't exist outside of someone's mind, and has no particular status or standing in law or procedure, period. So fundies (fundamentalist muslims) don't get to try and force their beliefs onto Charlie Hebdo or its readership, by dictating through force of threats, what cartoons it can or can't print. France doesn't have any problem with Islam. Islam does with France. The new, more proselyte kind of Islam, that is, which has a real issue with laicity, since that principle stands fully and squarely across its expansionist aims. Not the older Islam steeped in these republican, secular values, and which has been there without any problem for decades and longer (nor any burkahs, and there's your clue). Whether it's Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity, or.... pray in your corner, keep your beliefs to yourself, stow the proselyte part of it, and all will be well. But roll it out and try to force it on people, then expect to get stamped on, as much by the state as by the vast majority of the population itself.
  9. Was to be expected, after the media amplification of fundies' howls and Erdogan's **** stirring. Same as when Farage excited the masses over "traitor politicians" (Jo Cox), more recently Priti Patel excited masses over "lefty lawyers defending asylum seekers" (knifeman arrested in London law firm), etc. Some of the most excited amongst the excitable rabble can always be relied upon to eventually act.
  10. It is a small subset of the falsehoods reliably spouted by red tops for the last 40-odd years, demonstrating that at least that leave vote was obtained by deception. 1. The UK never lost or surrendered any sovereignty, it pooled some of it for economic purposes. It could always stop that pooling after the Lisbon Treaty introduced Article 50, and did exactly that 3 years ago. The UK's own Supreme Court says so. 2. The UK was always in full control of non-immigration, and still is. The UK always could control EU immigration under FoM through registration of EU immigrants and enforcement of EU time/professional limits (like all the other 27 members do, and have done for decades). But the UK never bothered to. The best irony? It's 2020 and immigration into the UK is still up...but immigration from the EU started dropping off in 2016 and has been lowering ever since, and is now record low. 3. Jeeesus, where to start with that one. The strongest possible bargaining position for trade deals with anyone in the late XXth century was, and currently still is, as an (influential) member of the EU within the CUSM. Maybe that will do it. 4. Brexit has already cost more £bns to the UK Exchequer now, than the UK ever paid as a member of the EU, and there's an extra £120bns to go by end 2023 (for £200bns total) according to expense tracking and economic studies by the big 4 & the LSE. I'll stick with simple numbers here and gloss over the real cost-benefit analysis, because I don't expect any Leave poster in here to acknowledge the synergistic effects of EU membership (what-benefits-membership-brings-that-money/contributions-cannot). 5. Defense is not, and never was, an area of EU competence involving pooled sovereignty and budget contributions. Same as the ECHR and the ECtHR in relation to point 1. **** all to do with the EU. 6. Is another one of those 'Jeeesus, where to start with this'. The world changes, always did, always will. Your government and other governments change it for you over time. Your employers, your neighbours, your relatives, shops you buy stuff from...everything around you changes all of the time, in smaller and larger increments, and stuff you do likewise changes other people's world. Short of buying your own little island and living on it, or topping yourself, you won't ever stop that.
  11. In 2018, the UK was (still) trading more with Ireland alone, than with all the BRICs combined. Not sure if that still holds as true today as it did then, because Ireland has been scaling back its trading with the UK in one big hurry since 2017. I don't think I need to remind people, about how the UK government has been treating Ireland in the past 2-3 years? Which minister was it, who threatened to blackmail them into famine (-again)? Ah yes, who else but Priti Patel. A £1 to £0.01 that this drop in the ocean of diplomatic foot-in-mouth gaffes by HMG since 2015, never registered once with our resident Brexit believers.
  12. Your first question was a barely-disguised ad hominem, and didn't -and still doesn't- deserve an answer. Your second question was, and still is, redundant, because this is a discussion forum, and those happy to "wait and see what Brexit looks like" (it has long been very real for an awful lot of people: ask a fellow Brit living and working in the EU, or you friendly exporting SMEs nearby) are by definition not discussing it. Many of them likely won't ever know what it looks like. They'll live all the consequences at the coalface, but (still) won't connect the dots, and will blame the EU, Brussels, foreigners, French, Germans, judges, lefty lawyers, nurses...everyone and everything their betters tell them to blame for these consequences - even themselves (as seen not so long ago with the government blaming you all for not following Covid rules well enough). Still, you got a reply.
  13. 'wait-and-see' is completely illogical as a justification for a Leave vote. It makes sense as a cultist belief, but absolutely not as a rational, economical basis: who in their right mind ever bet their house, career and life savings on undefined wishful thinking without any sort of plan? So, what else did Leave voters foresee 4 years ago, according to you?
  14. I would be neither pleased, nor sad. No, I would not care to do that. But I'm quite happy to continue discussing how Brexit is working out.
  15. Looks like we're getting to the true core of your political beliefs.
  16. You may wish to learn the difference between optics and strategy. It explains why Johnson's signature of the Withdrawal was such a success over the EU last year, but then such a disaster surrendering the UK to the EU about month ago. Or don't: same difference in the end
  17. Perhaps some of them do, indeed. If so, it would be good of them to explain the logic behind that foresight (I assume there is some logic to it). There hasn't been one like them in here since unbeliever, 4 years ago. He went very quiet in 2017, IIRC. No rush now, anyway. The UK's out. And 67 days away from a slim FTA (hard Brexit) or no deal (hardest Brexit). Johnson's latest can-kicking, putting the deal/no-deal decision at the US election outcome in November very much looks like playing the clock for no deal to me. But well. Brexiters still believe all will be well. Ex-Remainers are turning Rejoiners, knowing well that it will be a long game. And Europeans are past caring. Them leave voters better hang on to those beliefs.
  18. Very much a bad idea, since the Tories have managed to increase that debt quite substantially, after 10 years of governance, and they're currently going for Wonga-broke, by the looks of ongoing procurement practices. So I doubt that the note would have the same effect this time around.
  19. In financial terms, none whatsoever. In personal terms, the same as every other immigrant anywhere and at anytime: more opportunities than where I'd been. And until 2016: a country of adoption, of sorts.
  20. All it shows, is that I don't feel like discussing them yet again. But if you should insist, fine: back up each of your claims with evidence (red top anti-EU diarrhoea does not count as evidence) first. Then I'll use the Forum search function and link you to the corresponding -and relevant- debunking. I'm not doing the fact-checking and posting legwork yet again, if you don't first do your own claim-backing. The days of putting together considered replies with facts and links every time a Leaver parrots a red top headline like a doorbell and runs away, are well and truly done. This is trending currently: https://mobile.twitter.com/The_ChrisShaw/status/1320621527591755776?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet It might help your understanding of economics. It illustrates quite plainly and clearly how the 20% devaluation of the £ in June 2016 did not help UK exports, contrary to Leaver arguments of the time who were busy nee-ne-ne'ing us Remainers with their 'win' and dubbing our counter-arguments about those exports -and the UK manufacturing capacity generally- as "Project Fear". Well past too late now. The UK has been haemorraging FDI in proportion to that drop in exports over that same 3 year period.
  21. It "happened" already, on 30 January 2020. People who did not want Brexit to happen were as powerless before then as since, and any political opposition to it was finished off at the GE 2019. It doesn't matter what "we" said before or say now, no more than what Brexiters said or say now: the UK is getting the post-Brexit relationship with the EU that its government wants, ie currently none whatsoever. That is the UK's sovereign choice (sovereign, because made by the HoC supporting the government's course of action) and that has no-cake-and-no-eating-either consequences. Not bothering with the rest of your post: that collection of falsehoods has been debunked a million times already on here in the past 4 years and, after 4 years of entertaining Brexit supporters by asking them how do any of these alleged issues (were they true at all) affect them personally, we're still none the wiser. Unsurprisingly so, since they're not affected personally by "the EU" in the slightest, given that these are myths. It's so much easier to repeat anti-EU dog whistles -that takes one sloganeering sentence, eg "get Brexit done"- than to explain how and why such sloganeering sentences are dog whistles -that takes paragraphs with big words and links. In the same way most people notice job losses, but much fewer people understand why the job losses are occurring, and still fewer people understand jobs that could have been saved -and even increased- if FDI had continued at pre-2017 levels. That is in good part why Remain lost the referendum in 2016, and is still losing the debate now.
  22. Nah, I just dislike wilfully dumb people, from wherever. They're very easy to recognise. Can't help you with the Joyce thing, I'm afraid. He was working for the Nazis. I'm not. Unless you think anyone living and working in the EU27 and supporting the EU is working for the Nazis. But you don't think that, right? [...erm, speaking of American-Born British people working with fascists...]
  23. The people I'm calling dumb in that post, very clearly, are those who still hold out after the last 4 years, that the UK should have left (and/or should now leave, still) without an agreement with the EU. That is not "all the Leave voters", by very far: just about every poll you care to pick over the past 5 years (i.e. before the referendum and since), which measured the support for "no deal" shows that, incontrovertibly - and that those who have supported it over the years have reduced in numbers. If you thought my post was aimed at you, then obviously that is because you are this sort of person who believes in "no deal", and I make no apology whatsoever. If your convictions did not (or now do not) extend to "no deal", then I don't understand your taking issue with it.
  24. I don't need you to confirm how useless Corbyn was as a leader and/or how useless Labour have proven to be as an opposition, and I'm wholly uninterested in excuses: Labour had 10 years, and their result after a decade of 'work' as an opposition, is an 80-seat Tory majority in the HoC. After 3 years of the most abject uselesness under May, never mind the preceding years. By that metric alone, they're beyond useless. Lord help me I'm no fan of Labour or left-thinking oriented. And by now I'm thoroughly recovered of any past Tory leanings. This is simply objective, matter-of-factly observation. Refer the above. That government is rejecting the rule of law now, after 10 years of ruling. The answer is (was) not "by winning the next election". Because, clearly, Labour is after getting hold of the same levers in 4 years' time, by keeping that very same electioneering system in place. The answer is (was) "by doing anything and whatever necessary to change the electioneering system", proven to be irremediably broken by this rule of law rejection. But Labour will absolutely not do that. Because the above.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X