On 15/11/16 08:21, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

At this rate, Turnip's views are going to be too extreme even for
UKIP.

I wonder at what RPM his eyeballs are rotating at the moment.

I see Kermit and miss piggy are dating again...

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/11/16 16:58, Richard wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 14/11/16 13:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2016-11-14, Chris Green wrote:



'Socialist' is a word hung on to lots of names of countries and
governments which are not in the remotest way socialist.

IME, "socialism" is what people are pointing at when they say
"this is
socialism".

I'm a socialist. However, the problem with socialism (and
communism) is
that most of the socialist and communist governments have rarely
practised socialism and communism.

Every single socialist I have ever met says the same. 'We just need
*more* socialism'. However after granting various 'socialists' even
more power the self avowed socialists still say 'we need more
socialism'.

Throwing good money after bad is, it seems a very socialist thing to
do.

Since I avow vaguely socialist principles, I have supported anyone
that does not call themselves a socialist, on the grounds that people
who do, are incapable of delivering it.

It's not a case of needing 'more' socialism, but rather realising that
things which are called 'socialism' often aren't.

OK. Please explain how *you* are a socialist.

Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5

On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs' by
erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export losses in the end,
and plant closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets educate people
who can take it to a very very high level, and teach them to think for
themselves, remove government restrictions and let them make what they
will of the world' which is what leads to new cutting edge businesses
springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead to
unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful keep
rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the name of
the game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue signalling and
coming up with something cosmetic that has value in convincing people
you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in solving
any social problems. They are perpetually selling themselves on the idea
that once in power they WILL solve the problem, but of course they never
do. After all, if they did, they wouldn't be needed any more.

IN my lifetime only ONE politicians has said 'support me, I will do X,
and then I will be out of a job' and that was Nigel Farage. And he did,
and he will be.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
pamela wrote:
IN my lifetime only ONE politicians has said 'support me, I will
do X, and then I will be out of a job' and that was Nigel
Farage. And he did, and he will be.

You're overlooking Dan Hannan, who said the same thing in front
of a number of witnesses, including me.

Nigel Farage, whom I actually quite like, told Andrew Marr
recently that he wished to still lead UKIP but not to get involved
in party management. That sounds like he's not giving up a job in
politics just yet.

I'm sure he would great to have a laugh with over a pint.

In addition he's now seeking a job as a political go-between for
Trump and May.

If he really did want to 'spend more time with his family' he'd not seek
every opportunity to keep himself in the public eye.

One of his problems is that despite half a dozen attempts at
standing for Parliament he can't get elected to anything other
than the EU Parliament. Also his dodgy expense claims and tax
arrangements leave some questions about probity unanswered.

But we've pretty well established that morals mean nothing at all these
days to most policians. Indeed, seen as something to laugh at with Corbyn.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/11/16 16:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 12:48 15 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in
solving any social problems. They are perpetually selling themselves
on the idea that once in power they WILL solve the problem, but of
course they never do. After all, if they did, they wouldn't be
needed any more.

They also rig the electoral system so that it *looks* democratic, but
actually isn't. Like using the List PR System, designed so that the
top boys in the Party can't be gotten rid of, once elected. And so
that if a Top Boy died or actually gasp resigned, then the vacant
slot is in the Party's gift to fill and **** the electorate
(by-election? What is that?)
IN my lifetime only ONE politicians has said 'support me, I will do
X, and then I will be out of a job' and that was Nigel Farage. And
he did, and he will be.

You're overlooking Dan Hannan, who said the same thing in front of a
number of witnesses, including me.


Except he didn't mean it and didn't do it.

Nigel Farage, whom I actually quite like, told Andrew Marr recently
that he wished to still lead UKIP but not to get involved in party
management. That sounds like he's not giving up a job in
politics just yet.
In addition he's now seeking a job as a political go-between for Trump
and May.

One of his problems is that despite half a dozen attempts at
standing for Parliament he can't get elected to anything other
than the EU Parliament.

Highlights the problem with EU Parliament elections. As he's probably
top of their List, the electorate can't get rid of him.

well they can. They simply stop voting UKIP...


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 15/11/16 16:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

But we've pretty well established that morals mean nothing at all these
days to most policians. Indeed, seen as something to laugh at with
Corbyn.

We don't larf at Jezza because oh dear the silly boy has gasp morals.
We larf at him because he's a rubbish Leader.

Corbyns morals are those of a rat in a gutter.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 15/11/16 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/11/16 16:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 12:48 15 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IN my lifetime only ONE politicians has said 'support me, I will do
X, and then I will be out of a job' and that was Nigel Farage. And
he did, and he will be.

You're overlooking Dan Hannan, who said the same thing in front of a
number of witnesses, including me.

Except he didn't mean it and didn't do it.

Didn't do what?

engineer himself out of a job,.

Dan Hannan never left the cosy tory party and his cosy MP job and salary.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

But we've pretty well established that morals mean nothing at all these
days to most policians. Indeed, seen as something to laugh at with
Corbyn.

We don't larf at Jezza because oh dear the silly boy has gasp morals.
We larf at him because he's a rubbish Leader.

Interesting you concern yourself with the leader of a party you don't
support.

Just remember that most said the referendum vote would be to stay in and
Trump would never be elected.

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/11/16 01:49, Rod Speed wrote:

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 14/11/16 23:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Corbyn's party is extreme left.
[...]
Hard to claim that the renationalisation of everything that
has ever been nationalised in the past isnt extreme left.

er, I don't think that's what's proposed.

Have fun listing what he doesnt want to renationalise.
Car manufacturing, maybe, but that's about it.

You made the claim. You can substantiate it. Except that you probably can't.

We know there is talk of some form of public agency bidding for rail
franchises as they come up. I think that's it. Banks, Power
distribution, Water, Coal, Nuclear, Shipbuilding, Motors, Steel, rail
engineering, road building, sugar... I don't even know how long the list
is... postal services, telecomms....large parts of defence supply and
contracts.... probably loads more.

Tim w

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of protectionist
Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs' by erecting trade
barriers, which simply leads to export losses in the end, and plant
closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets educate people who can
take it to a very very high level, and teach them to think for themselves,
remove government restrictions and let them make what they will of the
world' which is what leads to new cutting edge businesses springing up
that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead to
unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful keep
rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the name of the
game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue signalling and coming
up with something cosmetic that has value in convincing people you
actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in solving any
social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war, and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

They are perpetually selling themselves on the idea
that once in power they WILL solve the problem, but of course they never
do. After all, if they did, they wouldn't be needed any more.

IN my lifetime only ONE politicians has said 'support me, I will do X, and
then I will be out of a job' and that was Nigel Farage. And he did, and he
will be.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 14/11/2016 20:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/11/16 19:58, critcher wrote:
On 13/11/2016 21:32, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/11/2016 20:18, critcher wrote:

what anti-Semitism ???

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=labour+party+anti-semitism

(about a quarter of a million hits, BTW)

I want to know what you think is anti-Semitism, not what the papers say.

Well why didn't you ask that question, then?


cos i'm not as bright as you

Yes it does, so you can probably guess what I think. One way of
assessing how far to the left or right a politician is might be to
imagine how much good or bad they could do if they came to power. On
that basis I'd say Mr Corbyn is an extremist because Marxism would
destroy the economy
Bill

how many times has capitalism destroyed the economy ?

Never to my certain knowledge.

How many times has any particular type of government destroyed the
economy? In fact when has the economy been 'destroyed'?

I think the CP did a good job on the Soviet one, and the CP has buggered
North Korea, and Mugabe, a self styled communist has sure ****ed up
Zimbabwe.

I think Bill thinks the economy can be destroyed by little old Jeremy.

On 15/11/16 17:20, TimW wrote:
On 15/11/16 01:49, Rod Speed wrote:

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 14/11/16 23:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Corbyn's party is extreme left.
[...]
Hard to claim that the renationalisation of everything that
has ever been nationalised in the past isnt extreme left.

er, I don't think that's what's proposed.

Have fun listing what he doesnt want to renationalise.
Car manufacturing, maybe, but that's about it.

You made the claim. You can substantiate it. Except that you probably
can't.

We know there is talk of some form of public agency bidding for rail
franchises as they come up. I think that's it. Banks, Power
distribution, Water, Coal, Nuclear, Shipbuilding, Motors, Steel, rail
engineering, road building, sugar... I don't even know how long the list
is... postal services, telecomms....large parts of defence supply and
contracts.... probably loads more.

Tim w

Forgot power generation, ports and airports,...
Rod?
.....BP I think, quite a few technology companies, did I mention water?
Rod?
What was that claim you were making?

TW

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:58 15 Nov 2016, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:05:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/11/16 20:01, critcher wrote:
On 14/11/2016 12:05, Bill Wright wrote:
On 14/11/2016 09:19, Chris Green wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Bill Wright wrote:
On 13/11/2016 22:08, Chris Green wrote:


Personally I think le Pen is further right than Corbyn is
left but I suspect you might disagree.


It isn't really quantifiable is it?

Not easily no, but your original posting depends on it as
much as my reply surely??

Yes it does, so you can probably guess what I think. One way
of assessing how far to the left or right a politician is
might be to imagine how much good or bad they could do if
they came to power. On that basis I'd say Mr Corbyn is an
extremist because Marxism would destroy the economy and
Stalinism would destroy free speech. I can't imagine that Mme
le Pen could do that much damage.

Bill

how many times has capitalism destroyed the economy ?

Never to my certain knowledge.

The Great depression.

2008

Also.........

For the UK, Black Monday in 1987 and Black Wednesday in 1992.
For Asia, the financial crisis in 1997.
For US, the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression.

None of those destroyed the economy.

Just for you, Tulip Mania in C17! :-)

En el artículo , pamela
escribió:

Not a fan? I didn't like those stories last year that Diana was
pregnant with a Muslim baby when she died.

Which paper? let me guess: the Express.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 16/11/16 12:25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

Not a fan? I didn't like those stories last year that Diana was
pregnant with a Muslim baby when she died.

Which paper? let me guess: the Express.

Actually nearly all of the tabloids. Even the Telegraph ran it, but of
course said it was mere hoohah.

Still as a solid example of your leap into bigotry without checking the
facts, its a handy post of yours to see.


What's that called? Dunning Kruger?

No, its confirmation bias.



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 16/11/16 13:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 10:05 16 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:
On 09:58 15 Nov 2016, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:05:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 14/11/16 20:01, critcher wrote:
On 14/11/2016 12:05, Bill Wright wrote:
On 14/11/2016 09:19, Chris Green wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Bill Wright wrote:
On 13/11/2016 22:08, Chris Green wrote:

Personally I think le Pen is further right than Corbyn
is left but I suspect you might disagree.

It isn't really quantifiable is it?
Not easily no, but your original posting depends on it as much
as my reply surely??
Yes it does, so you can probably guess what I think. One
way of assessing how far to the left or right a politician
is might be to imagine how much good or bad they could do
if they came to power. On that basis I'd say Mr Corbyn is
an extremist because Marxism would destroy the economy and
Stalinism would destroy free speech. I can't imagine that
Mme le Pen could do that much damage.
how many times has capitalism destroyed the economy ?

Never to my certain knowledge.

The Great depression.
2008

Also.........
For the UK, Black Monday in 1987 and Black Wednesday in 1992. For
Asia, the financial crisis in 1997. For US, the Wall Street
Crash and the Great Depression.
Just for you, Tulip Mania in C17! :-)

There's always people susceptible to hysteria. Just look at what
happened in the aftermath of Diana's death (who she - Ed).

Not a fan? I didn't like those stories last year that Diana was
pregnant with a Muslim baby when she died.

Not particularly. Where were those stories appearing, BTW, I missed
them all.

BBC Guardian telegraph mirror mail express star...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7025774.stm


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

In article , Hankat
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs' by
erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export losses in the
end, and plant closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets
educate people who can take it to a very very high level, and teach
them to think for themselves, remove government restrictions and let
them make what they will of the world' which is what leads to new
cutting edge businesses springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead to
unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful
keep rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the
name of the game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue
signalling and coming up with something cosmetic that has value in
convincing people you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in solving
any social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war,
This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars in
Europe.
and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

So it hasn't solved any social problem but rather has helped compound an
already exiting one.

Snip
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which has
a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs' by
erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export losses in the
end, and plant closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets educate
people who can take it to a very very high level, and teach them to
think for themselves, remove government restrictions and let them make
what they will of the world' which is what leads to new cutting edge
businesses springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead to
unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful keep
rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the name of
the game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue signalling and
coming up with something cosmetic that has value in convincing people
you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in solving
any social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war,
This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars in
Europe.

Must be why Bosnia happened.

and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

So it hasn't solved any social problem

Of course it has for those who want to move within the EU.

but rather has helped compound an already exiting one.

Not for those who want to move within the EU.

In article , Hankat
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which
has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs'
by erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export losses in
the end, and plant closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets
educate people who can take it to a very very high level, and
teach them to think for themselves, remove government restrictions
and let them make what they will of the world' which is what leads
to new cutting edge businesses springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead
to unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful
keep rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the
name of the game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue
signalling and coming up with something cosmetic that has value in
convincing people you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in
solving any social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war,
This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars
in Europe.

Must be why Bosnia happened.

Bosnia was not in the EU and it wasn't a world war.
and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

So it hasn't solved any social problem

Of course it has for those who want to move within the EU.

That's not a "social problem" and as I said it compounded other social
problems esp in the UK
but rather has helped compound an already exiting one.

Not for those who want to move within the EU.
As above
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people of
this
country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program, which
has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting jobs' by
erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export losses in the
end, and plant closure, and the sort of more intelligent 'lets
educate people who can take it to a very very high level, and teach
them to think for themselves, remove government restrictions and let
them make what they will of the world' which is what leads to new
cutting edge businesses springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages lead to
unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour Faithful
keep rattling on about it. Because like with renewable energy, the
name of the game is not actually solving the problem, its virtue
signalling and coming up with something cosmetic that has value in
convincing people you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in solving
any social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war,
This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars in
Europe.

Must be why Bosnia happened.

Bosnia was not in the EU and it wasn't a world war.

You said serious wars in Europe. NATO and H bomb clearly didn't prevent that
one.

and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

So it hasn't solved any social problem

Of course it has for those who want to move within the EU.

That's not a "social problem"

Of course it is.

and as I said it compounded other social problems esp in the UK

I said 'some real downsides'

but rather has helped compound an already exiting one.

Not for those who want to move within the EU.
As above

as above.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 15:01:09 UTC, bert wrote:

This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars in
Europe.

I thought we were all told that the EU achieved this or ather the previous version the EEC.

In article , Hankat
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Hankat
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 15/11/16 11:50, Capitol wrote:
Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Me? I support policies that are to the benefit of the people

country.

Less immigration
Less taxes on work and profits
More taxes on consumption
Less government
Less regulation
Better education
Scrap the BBC
Scrap minimum wages.
Scrap renewable energy.
Leave the EU




You'll never do as a guest on the ch4 Wright stuff program,
which has a
full fledged Remoaner agenda!

Correction, ch5


Joking apart, there is a real dichotomy between the sort of
protectionist Luddite type EU/Labour attitude of 'protecting
jobs' by erecting trade barriers, which simply leads to export
losses in the end, and plant closure, and the sort of more
intelligent 'lets educate people who can take it to a very very
high level, and teach them to think for themselves, remove
government restrictions and let them make what they will of the
world' which is what leads to new cutting edge businesses springing up that DO employ people.

I.e job protection measures don't protect jobs. Minimum wages
lead to unemployment instead.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, and yet the Labour
Faithful keep rattling on about it. Because like with renewable
energy, the name of the game is not actually solving the
problem, its virtue signalling and coming up with something
cosmetic that has value in convincing people you actually care.

Of course if you really cared, you would do something very different.

My conclusion is that the Eurosocalists are not interested in
solving any social problems.

That is rather over stated. They have solved two social problems, world
war after world war,
This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious
wars in Europe.

Must be why Bosnia happened.

Bosnia was not in the EU and it wasn't a world war.

Well neither did "eursocialists". Of course Bosnia was not in Nato and
the Warsaw pact had collapsed with the Soviet Union.
You said serious wars in Europe. NATO and H bomb clearly didn't prevent
that one.

and the free movement of people within the EU
has solved another social problem, albeit with some real downsides.

So it hasn't solved any social problem

Of course it has for those who want to move within the EU.

That's not a "social problem"

Of course it is.

and as I said it compounded other social problems esp in the UK

I said 'some real downsides'

In which case you haven't solved the problem merely exchanged it for
another.
but rather has helped compound an already exiting one.

Not for those who want to move within the EU.
As above

as above.

--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 15:01:09 UTC, bert wrote:

This old chestnut again. H-bomb and Nato have prevented serious wars in
Europe.

I thought we were all told that the EU achieved this or ather the
previous version the EEC.

We are - frequently!
--
bert