It is not a quedtion of interpretation. I am sorry. Read the treaties I linked to previously. They expressly say that if they do not describe themselves competent to do something, then they are not competent or entitled to do it. They do not describe themselves as competent in domestic democracy. There is no wriggle room. That was my point from the start, and me sticking to it, citing law and EU opinion, has been the cause of all the criticism and abuse I have received since. If you are still saying you think they had a right, despite their own laws and opinions, that is your business, and you can be judged on it. For myself, I am afraid, it indicates that you would rather deny explicit EU law, rather than agree with me on something, and that justifies the negative things I have said on here. Yes, opinions can be wrong, but written laws and expressed opinions are open to very lityle interpretation when they are stated so clearly.
You're the only person on here who has to explain what YOU mean by 'middle class', which was my point really. I interpret 'faux-jokey' as meaning something put forward under the guise of being humorous and not to be taken literally, when in fact the originator fully believes it. As I have said, I'm always perfectly happy to define my interpretation of any term I employ. I have never argued for the truth being democratic; I have said many times that disagreeing with someone does not mean I am 'right' and they are 'wrong' and I have even suggested to you that you could consider modifying the strident nature of your declamations, moving from 'you have not convinced me I am not right' to 'you have not convinced me I am wrong', but that seems to run contrary to your character. The fact that the majority on here disagree with you does not mean that majority is 'right' and you are 'wrong'. Were I to find myself in that position, it would prompt me to interrogate my own arguments to see if such an imbalance of opinion may have some worth to it. It would not lead me to double down and decide that only me, myself, I could possibly be 'right'. As for my last line, I do apply those precepts to myself, and if you are unable or unwilling to accept the possibility that 'facts' and 'truth' are not immutable universal concepts then there is even less scope for worthwhile discussion.
Hahaha, very good. You said 'All the evidence you might need of that opinion is provided in the fact that I stated it'. Maybe you didn't mean to frame it that way, but it seems to suggest that you did not need to give supporting evidence for your opinions and that the statement of the opinion itself was evidence enough. As I said, at the time I took it as an attempt at some sort of humour. Subsequent exchanges have led me to question that.
?? So now you are saying that you didn’t say what you said? Regarding me considering I am wrong because everyone else disagrees with me. This is the most blatant gaslighting. I don’t think anyone is keeping up with you. That is the biggest load meaningless twaddle I have ever read I am afraid. You are simply talking yourself in circles and and making out you are saying something important and thoughtful. What it all boils down to is that you are so averse to reality that you are prepared to say that EU law is meaningless and they don’t mean what they say when they say it. If you can’t admit to making a mistake, then why should anyone trust anything else you say?
Would you mind just reading my post again. You might understand it this time. Hint: It is, as the words make clear, a criticism of your continual practice of quoting what you would like me to have said, rather than actually quoting my posts, which would provide clarity regarding what I actually said, inconveniently for your narrative. I think you have lost it mate. The first terminal case of Hooter Derangement Syndrome.
For educational purposes, I will repeat what I previously said regarding the claim above that the term was originally coined with an innocent meaning to it. It also serves as another reminder that whenever I have been asked to support a point I have made, I have done so with evidence and with civility. So the original coining of the use of those terms was not for the reasons you say (it was actually to liken the first and second worlds to Government and Church, and the third world to the 'despised' commoners). Even if they were later co-opted, subsequent to the original use, what you describe still carried with it the baggage of the original author's specified classification. The use of the terms by white supremacists, which can be considered representative of their beliefs from the point Sauvy coined them, is far more in keeping with the orginal concept of lesser "ignored, exploited and despised" countries, than the subsequent version you describe. Given the original concept, the use you describe becomes suspect from the start, not the 'latter' use that reverts to Alfred Sauvy's commentary on how the third world is viewed by the two worlds that consider themselves their betters. But you don't have to rely on me for this. Ask your local Labour equalities officer for their opinion. Perhaps you could show them Sauvy's original use as well. Sauvy came up with the terms. Please do not now say he did not mean what he said when he defined them. You have been denying factual reality, international law and EU treaties since this discussion began and every argument you are now making seems to plead that you be taken less seriously with everything you say. Every time you bring something up you seem to give me the opportunity to point out how I orginally acted with civility and evidenced explanations, and that I have been reflecting the reality of the situation with greater accuracy than my detractors on here.
1950s academic proposes system to classify existing global geopolitical situation. Said technical definition is subsequently misused by actors with despicable agenda. Hooter decides this is proof that original author of classification system meant it to be of succour to white supremacist, racist agencies all along, despite fact that the foundations of the classifications were first used by the (non-racist, non white supremacist UN). Hooter then proclaims his civility to those whom he has erroneously accused of defending racist and white supremacist views. An incredible feat of self delusion.
There is nothing in that post that could lead any intelligent reader to reach the conclusion that I was denying saying what I said; who knows why you’ve reached that conclusion? Please don’t project your inability to understand attitudes at odds with your absolutist mindset onto other people. There seems to be only you and an acolyte that are having such problems. I have said before that you undermine some alternative views I find interesting and sometimes challenging by regularly resorting to absolutist Manichaean argument that renders future discussions on those topics quite pointless. I find that unfortunate, but there we are
Tiresome. Can you just explain why you do not believe that the EU is held by the law of its own treaties NOT to be involved in UK democracy? That is the only point I have been trying to draw you on, and it is the only point you have absolutely refused to respond to, though you have split hairs on all but my spelling. You have been asked directly about ten times now, I would guess. Hooter's premonition of the future... You are transparent like glass.
I am afraid you are the definition of absolutist mate. You absolutely will never admit that the EU are held by their own laws, and that they disagree with you about involvement in UK democracy, which they consider to be against the declaration of human rights and international law. You freely gave your position on this, I have just pointed out that the EU do not agree.
UK farmers set to be undercut by EU farming subsidies as UK government let them down....again: https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/fw-opinion-eus-bailout-set-to-undercut-uk-food-production Taking back control eh?
This one clearly slipped me by. I have never claimed the interpretations and opinions I put forward in such debates ever mean I have 'proven' any of them to be 'true facts' and that I am 'right'. I leave that to you.
Poster who clearly does not understand what the word means, accuses another of being 'absolutist' in their views! I decided to go back and re-read the proof-generating links you posted on the EU's articles and Springer's piece on 'International Law'. As I had concluded upon first reading, my interpretation of the 'competences' that are allocated in whole or part, or not at all, to the EU are clearly in form substantive, structural, organisational or executive. Had the EU attempted to organise or directly control the referendum then, yes, they would have acted against the terms of the articles of their own treaty. To extrapolate that position from what the 'EU' (or, more often if not exclusively, particular representatives of individual constituent members of the EU) actually did during the referendum campaign is just not tenable. Those representatives were asked by members of the democratically-elected parliament (some of them senior government ministers) of the member state holding the referendum to give their input, which they did. I appreciate you do not like the fact that UK MPs actively canvassed the input of fellow EU representatives, but they did & I am still unconvinced their expression of directly requested opinion in any way contravenes the articles of the treaty. To extend your position would mean as soon as any elections at any level in any EU member state were called, no comments of any nature pertaining to that member state could ever be made by anyone within another EU polity, just in case such comments constituted 'undue and unwanted interference' or whatever. The piece on International Law includes the following important observation: 'Nevertheless, its application depends on the determination of the matter in question within the domestic jurisdiction....' I'm not aware of any such determination ever having been carried out subsequent to the 2016 referendum. I can appreciate why someone holding such an extreme anti-EU viewpoint as yourself can feel annoyed at UK MPs asking their EU colleagues to give input; to then decide this constitutes an act illegal within EU and International Law is pure fantasy.
Fair enough. You have given your answer and I accept your opinion on the interpretation of the documents I quoted). You can now be judged on it. This is my judgement. As you have missed on many occasions, I have no problem at all, and indeed encourage, diplomacy and debate, which is where EU 'collegues' can give their input with the caveat that they do so fairly and in a manner that allows response. Propaganda, a one sided message that attempts, unasked and without chance of direct rebuttal, to persuade a party into a particular way of thinking and behaviour, is interference whichever way you look at it. As is universally understood by everyone (see below) except yourself and other lefties on here. Such as when Tusk, during campaigning for the 2019 UK election, spoke to the people of the UK, saying it was not too late to turn around Brexit; which could only be done by voting against the Conservative in favour of parties that would 'turn Brexit around'. That was a direct intervention, by the outgoing President of the EU, from the podium at an official EU convention, pushing EU propaganda into the UK democratic process. He was not invited by UK colleagues to do so (it would have been considered a conspiracy if he had), because those UK colleagues would know that the EU does not find itself competent to involve itself in UK politics. It's like the strategy meeting Sturgeon wanted to hold in Scotland, which her true friends pointed out to her could be considered an act of treason or war against the UK, which was conducting a democratically chosen process that had been sanctioned by Parliament. From the pro-Brexit BBC report on Tusk's behaviour... Former head of the UK diplomatic service Sir Simon Fraser said he believed Mr Tusk was a friend of the UK but argued making the comments was "not the right thing to do". "I think the principle that politicians don't comment on the electoral affairs of other countries is a wise principle," he added. ... Mr Tusk has repeatedly hinted he would like to see the UK stay in the bloc - but his comments, in the midst of an election campaign - are likely to be controversial. He acknowledged this in his speech, adding his remarks were "something I wouldn't have dared to say a few months ago, as I could be fired for being too frank". So you can argue with the President of the EU and the Pro-EU former head of the UK diplomatic service as well if you like; who, incidentally, both agree with my point of view. And you can take it from the EU that the "wise priniciple" is based on the fact that Internationally it is a universal understanding that intereference in the affairs of other countries is a breach of the Declaration of Human Rights and International Law, as the EU declared in the document I linked to above.
Here's an example of you being absolutist about an opinion you had, and you doubled down on it, and repeated the claim a number of times since I put you right on the original author and his original meaning for the terms... Note your phrase "So absolutely nothing to do with 'White Supremacist' thinking." Well, that is your opinion, but it does not sit well with your above claim that "I have never claimed the interpretations and opinions I put forward in such debates ever mean I have 'proven' any of them to be 'true facts' and that I am 'right'" You see how well it works when you actually quote the post in which someone said the thing you want to discuss? So, you can clear up this matter of whether you are in any way absolutist about your opinion, and that you do not favour BS over fact. You can answer the following... Do you now agree with me that 3rd World was not ORIGINALLY coined to mean "all countries that were not aligned with either of the above two categories", but rather, and I quote the original article here "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate", so rather, not ORIGINALLY defined by their alliance to the first and second worlds, but by those world's ignoring, exploiting and despising them, as the original auther, the person who coined the phrase as it were, describes them. Cuba was considered a third world country following the revolution, despite its alignment with the USSR. I think perhaps you could take that as some indicaton that what I claimed originally had some merrit, and that your version is not as sound as you were certainly arguing it to be.
In a case of art imitating life, this thread has become like the daily 10 mile queues into Dover, with juggernaut posts continually backed up.
Or maybe bad weather and the P&O mob behaving like a bunch of ***** . But hey . No mind . Let's blame the majority in a free and fair election and then wonder why the electorate who have been chastised by the great and the good for exercising their democratic right say "fugg you , take that" And we get 4 more years of Tory nonsense
And while I am on a roll , and this is not aimed at @Moose , are you a " vote labour, live Tory " type of guy or gal ? . Cos if so I am looking at you for the reason why a bunch of old Etonian pig fuggers are ruling over us .
This is the problem of having a simple binary referendum on a complex matter. Your vote doesn’t indemnify you against criticism for the decision and it still has to work. Trade has been made more difficult, prices have soared. What’s the upside of Brexit? And, no, it doesn’t matter that there is pandemic, war etc. Every arrangement will suffer shocks, for example our EU membership that couldn’t last the financial crash. The other problem is that Brexiteers cannot seem to compromise. And so the central problem has never been faced. We need EU trade and they are much, much bigger than us. We can moan and bitch, but it’s their terms or leave it.
You know I agree that liberal politics are to blame for the situation we are in. Liberals, Tory and Labour, have systematically corroded what we used to do together by outsourcing decisions to the market. The result? No council homes, soaring rents, out of control utility prices, all while a section of the population lives very comfortably indeed. But the propagandists for attacks on trade unions, class solidarity etc are funded by the traditional and multinational elite. We have Etonians in charge because their media and think tanks undermine the ability to challenge them and give you in return a nice Union Jack to wave. That’s why nationalism is a ***qing pox. It’s consolation for class traitors.
Why cannot we trade with the EU ? Anywho . I know . For sure. African farmers .Especially coffee farmers could do with a "fair deal " But how could that work ? How does "everyone" win ?
So we're not supposed point out that Brexit was a massive mistake and is doing very real harm to this country because doing so might upset some of those that voted for it? And if we do some will vote Tory, which is probably against their own interests, as a protest against being criticised for voting for Brexit? Really? I've never called anyone an idiot for voting Brexit but if anyone votes against their own interests as a "fugg you" just because someone criticises their Brexit vote then they are a 100% idiot.
I would agree with this in general. I would say that where previously rampant racist nationalism was once the carrot, it is now, without a doubt, Marxist virtue signalling that has replaced it. If there were far right wing demonstrations and riots going on in London, supported by a right wing press and being allowed to get away with extreme acts such as toppling statues of Karl Marx, then I would say you have a point. But the fact is it is the likes of BLM, Antifa and the trans lobby, for example, that are getting their way in things these days, and I believe that supports what I say. The argument that Brexit was a right wing phenomenon is absurd; if labour’s decline, defeat in the general election and loss of their traditional voters does not make that clear, then you/they are destined to suffer Tory rule for as long as it takes you to understand. What you say above has some good points to it, but then you spoil it all by once again making the offensive suggestion that wanting to be free of the EU is a right wing concern. We stood with the likes of Tony Benn when we voted to come out, for the very arguments he put forward.
You can point out your opinion as much as you like, but leavers were not in it for the money, as you seem to imply remainers are (that capitalist argument again). Brexit was a complete success, as much as the intention was to leave the EU. It’s just the aftermath we have to deal with, as was known all along, or are you saying no one warned anyone of it?
