So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Barrie Stevens said:

 Police Scotland I believe no longer requires officers to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen..

They never have done, well certainly not in living memory. Nowt to do with devolution anyhow.

Edited June 14, 2019 by woolley

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

Were the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales manipulated into accepting Westminster as being a superior authority outside of their own countries?  Do those countries not have a right to a "sovereign" Government and not to be ruled by a "foreign" power?

I can understand that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been around for a lot longer than the EU.  I can even understand the argument that we are "stronger together" but I still find it contradictory that many in favour of leaving the EU also believe in maintaining the United Kingdom and rule from Westminster.  Surely if you are in favour of self-governance and independent nations then Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England should be separate countries in their own right and not governed from a central seat of power?  

I sometimes wonder if the EU was based in London rather than Brussels if the UK population would feel differently towards the EU.... 

The people of the British Isles are much more of a coherent unit having largely interbred for a thousand years. We have far more that joins us than divides us. I'm English but I have Irish and Scottish blood. Similar mixes are the norm. The EU in contrast sprawls across a continent of diverse cultures.

[woolley]

21 hours ago, woolley said:

 Four years minimum to train a nurse is part of what's wrong with the system and the more on the job training the better. Interesting that you believe that it is more acceptable to bring people from elsewhere to do shitty hours for shitty wages than to reform the system.

 

21 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

 Strawman.

You've always been fond of the strawman riposte but I sometimes wonder if you know what it means. It certainly isn't appropriate here. The conditions are the direct and inevitable consequence of the policy you support.

[manxman1980]

29 minutes ago, woolley said:

The people of the British Isles are much more of a coherent unit having largely interbred for a thousand years. We have far more that joins us than divides us. I'm English but I have Irish and Scottish blood. Similar mixes are the norm. The EU in contrast sprawls across a continent of diverse cultures.

And yet that precious British DNA has been mixed with Viking, Roman, Norman, Celtic and Saxon and a whole host of other cultures intertwined.  We may live on a group of Islands but we are not that far removed from our European  neighbour's.

Your argument is only valid over a limited historical period.

[woolley]

6 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

And yet that precious British DNA has been mixed with Viking, Roman, Norman, Celtic and Saxon and a whole host of other cultures intertwined.  We may live on a group of Islands but we are not that far removed from our European  neighbour's.

Your argument is only valid over a limited historical period.

Which perfectly proves my point. All of those promoting well over a thousand years of homogeneity.

[manxman1980]

4 minutes ago, woolley said:

Which perfectly proves my point. All of those promoting well over a thousand years of homogeneity.

So you would also agree that you have a shared history with France, Germany and Scandinavian countries based on that...

[woolley]

Just now, manxman1980 said:

So you would also agree that you have a shared history with France, Germany and Scandinavian countries based on that...

No. Because as evolution proves, once isolated the characteristics change and adapt in different directions. In our case we emerged with a distinct British identity having a shared experience of life in our islands. As I said, well over a thousand years of almost total homogeneity with only minor exceptions.

[manxman1980]

26 minutes ago, woolley said:

No. Because as evolution proves, once isolated the characteristics change and adapt in different directions. In our case we emerged with a distinct British identity having a shared experience of life in our islands. As I said, well over a thousand years of almost total homogeneity with only minor exceptions.

When did that distinct British identity emerge?  1066? 1415? 1485? 1603? 1945? 1966?  Life on these islands has always involved invasions, immigration and emigration and if you want to go along the genetic route I could point out to the ancestors of all human life and say that this plus the other factors I have just mentioned trumps your argument that Britain is somehow isolated from other genetic influences.

Today we have plenty of people born in the UK to mixed race parents, or to British and Polish, British and French parents etc etc.  Boris Johnson even has Turkish ancestry and yet is busy trumpeting what it means to be British.

We share plenty of things in common with our European neighbours, including much of our supposedly British culture and language.  Fish and Chips?  Created in 1860 in London by a Jewish immigrant.  How many words in English originate from French & German? Restaurant, Cafe, Abseil, Doppelganger.. 

Your argument is straying dangerously close to eugenics. 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

People manipulated into feeling this way are the problem. It's kind of juvenile in outlook. How do you account for feeling such a curious  preference?

Juvenile? maybe but perhaps life's experiences have yet to make you think otherwise.

Using a local example (just for illustration purposes) let's say you are a professional employed by the gov. and you have to take them to task on a false disciplinary procedure.

When all the normal channels have been explored, the final arbiter is our AG who is employed by your employer with whom you have fallen out. If you think his decision is sub optimal where do you then take your grievance? Yeah nowhere.....  That "little restriction" will apply to the UK too after Hop Tu Naa....

A scenario that's never happened to you? Long may that continue but until then, less of the pejoratives if you don't mind.

Edited June 14, 2019 by ballaughbiker
grammar

[woolley]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

When did that distinct British identity emerge?  1066? 1415? 1485? 1603? 1945? 1966?  Life on these islands has always involved invasions, immigration and emigration and if you want to go along the genetic route I could point out to the ancestors of all human life and say that this plus the other factors I have just mentioned trumps your argument that Britain is somehow isolated from other genetic influences.

Today we have plenty of people born in the UK to mixed race parents, or to British and Polish, British and French parents etc etc.  Boris Johnson even has Turkish ancestry and yet is busy trumpeting what it means to be British.

We share plenty of things in common with our European neighbours, including much of our supposedly British culture and language.  Fish and Chips?  Created in 1860 in London by a Jewish immigrant.  How many words in English originate from French & German? Restaurant, Cafe, Abseil, Doppelganger.. 

Your argument is straying dangerously close to eugenics. 

No it isn't. We aren't talking about selective breeding. We are discussing the history of the distinct British identity and how it has developed over more than a millennium. Yes, it is partly insular but it is also that of a maritime trading nation. You are missing the point by questioning 1066, 1415 etc. It's all of those. Are you saying that it means nothing to be British?

[Freggyragh]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

So the effect of this is what? You think that the UK is going to choose to abandon insurance for shipping in its waters? Why would it do such a thing? But in any case, it matters not how these things work or in what detail you delve. The principle being fought for is that they are decided at national level and agreed in negotiation has as happened since time immemorial as opposed to being imposed on a supranational level by a remote oligarchy. It's easy enough to understand.

You didn’t understand my post. My point is that the rules of the Single Market differ very little from the rules agreed on in any bilateral trade agreement, so if the U.K. wants to engage in trade it has to abide by trade treaties. The choice is whether it wants to be on the inside helping to make the rules, or on the outside being dictated to by bigger markets. Oh, but yeah, but if you actually think the U.K. would be ‘taking back control’ of the terms of trade by leaving the organisation that makes them and dictating the rules to the big boys all by itself, then yeah, I can see where you’re coming from; cloud cuckoo land. 

[RIchard Britten]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

I sometimes wonder if you know what it means. 

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. 

You attempted to attribute a statement or position to me that I did not present myself, and then used that to attempt to refute the actual statement I made.

Box in your box granddad.

[manxman1980]

7 minutes ago, woolley said:

No it isn't. We aren't talking about selective breeding. We are discussing the history of the distinct British identity and how it has developed over more than a millennium. Yes, it is partly insular but it is also that of a maritime trading nation. You are missing the point by questioning 1066, 1415 etc. It's all of those. Are you saying that it means nothing to be British?

I am saying that national borders are nothing but lines drawn on a map.  Why should we not start to forget about border lines on a map and start to concentrate on how we can work closely together to improve this planet which we share with billions of others.  

Of course we should learn about our history and we should be impressed with the developments that have taken place but we should also consider them successes (or failures in some cases) of all humanity.  It is very rare to find an advancement that was isolated to one single place.  People all over the world evolved and developed the same or slightly different solutions to the problems they encountered.  These were then shared, copied or stolen as international movement increased.

I just do not like this rise in tribalism - whether it be at a local or national level - and certainly do not want to see another cold war or god help us a global conflict.  I see Brexit as a symptom rather than a cause of rising nationalism and whilst I am not overly concerned about the UK going to war I do look at the posturing between countries such as China, Russia, USA and North Korea with some concern.  And for what purpose?  Because they somehow believe that a line on a map is important?  That there "shared experiences" somehow make them better than anyone else? 

I am sure you will think I am a citizen of nowhere.  I would argue I am a citizen of Earth, a Human who believes that we need to learn from the past and build a better future.  I most certainly do not want a return to multinational tension and war where the only victors are the wealthy.

 

[woolley]

19 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Juvenile? maybe but perhaps life's experiences have yet to make you think otherwise.

Using a local example (just for illustration purposes) let's say you are a professional employed by the gov. and you have to take them to task on a false disciplinary procedure.

When all the normal channels have been explored, the final arbiter is our AG who is employed by your employer with whom you have fallen out. If you think his decision is sub optimal where do you then take your grievance? Yeah nowhere.....  That "little restriction" will apply to the UK too after Hop Tu Naa....

A scenario that's never happened to you? Long may that continue but until then, less of the pejoratives if you don't mind.

I agree with the above actually. I know people who have been in precisely this position believe it or not, but the UK is hardly the Isle of Man. It's a thousand times bigger and far more sophisticated. I don't think we need worry on this score. Juvenile was meant to be descriptive not pejorative. If that offends your sensibilities it's a good thing you aren't on this side of the divide with the rubbish we have to put up with from the superior remainers.

[ballaughbiker]

I try hard not be a superior remainer. It doesn't take much effort.