mdwhMember Since 27 Feb 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 03:43 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 687
- Profile Views 8,945
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
- Website URL http://mdwh2.users.sourceforge.net/
Posts I've Made
Today, 02:08 PM
Yesterday, 08:12 AM
Europe has also been at war with infighting for most of those millennia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fall of the EU means a return to those times, but I'm not exactly reassured by a "hey, it was fine before, the EU is just a new thing".
Do you think a union will stop infighting in the long term? ;-)
In terms of its age - I note that firstly you base your argument that 17 years is "literally children", but then say 1993 is merely "an additional 6 years" - except it blows a hole in your "literally children" argument.
But my comment was not talking about a return to the pre-1993 EEC - that would be fine too. But unlikely - out is out, not a return to pre-1993, and if the EU collapses due to other countries leaving, we're talking pre-1958. Your comment also was not talking about the 1958-1993 period - you said "England has ruled itself for more than a millennia" and I just pointed out what most of those millennia looked like (at least, for Europe).
The panic you're seeing is partly the unknown - that may have something to do with the fact that we had a Leave vote with utterly no plan as to what will happen in terms of negotiating trade agreements, and there's still no sign of any consensus. For starters if you're going to understand, it may help to have a knowledge that is more than a misreading of Wikipedia (this reminds me of the Google trends showing people searching for "What is the EU" after the referendum). But even the 1993 date is misleading, because an out vote doesn't return us to 1993, it puts us out of the common market, so pre-1973 (when the UK joined). Well, unless we be like Norway which means still abiding by EU rules and having freedom of movement, without any say in the EU.
I don't see how the panic is very odd, unless you think not much has changed in 46 years.
(I had someone argue that we couldn't have joined the EU anyway because an old treason law from 17xx basically said 'do nothing which would result in loss of power for the crown' so it was an illegal treaty and we weren't in anyway... although that guy was around my age and managed to get the hallowed distinction of being the only 'leaver' who I had to block in this whole debate due to the levels of BS put out...)
Ah but the crown also has the power to join the EU! (Unless by crown he means the Queen, but by that logic, the Commons is treason also.) This guy may have been an isolated bs-er, but the common theme of supremacy of the UK Government seems to be a main argument. The paradox is that the UK Government is still supreme when it chooses to accept things in return for benefits such as free trade. The Government would have been supreme if it'd say "we're not having a referendum, and not leaving the EU". The UK has always had the choice to leave the EU - as it will now do. What the UK can't do is pick and choose - have the free trade without the things people don't like. But I don't see how we'll be able to do that out the EU either...
25 June 2016 - 09:55 AM
Criminals in our country wanted in their home country have the right to avoid deportation by abusing the EU human rights act. Thanks again.
Money will be wasted on conferences, limos, caviar and champagne in Brussels.This sounds more like a description of our own head of state...
Not all dislike of the EU is about immigration...So it's actually about immigration, bendy bananas, and a Convention that isn't part of the EU.
25 June 2016 - 06:00 AM
then Britain, France, Germany... were net contributors to EU while others where net beneficiaries
Britain, was a net recipient of migrants - many of these contribute massively positively to the economy, but there were also massive pressures on public services and also there were migrants for benefits - these disadvantages outweighs the advantages - hence for me Brexit is right, but its marginal
The common market was good though
The shock of the exit has started and its going to be huge, but when it calms down then the positive benefits of being outside the EU would start to be felt
The EU is VERY new and England has ruled itself for more than a millennia. This will not have a long term impact on the UK, although it may destroy the EU. Even then, all of the EU states have existed for centuries.
Now they don't need comply with some of the sillier EU regulations and follow laws written by people they may not have elected.
I think Brexit is rather easier as UK wasn't in Schengen or Eurozone and I believe they will make a regulation like Norway if they don't want to make an example for the rest.
30 May 2016 - 03:59 PM
The most obvious subtle gotcha that you will have is that you will run Windows 10 afterwards.
Are there any subtle gotchas that I will need to be aware of if I do end up upgrading?
I would think very carefully whether you absolutely need Windows 10. There may indeed be valid reasons why you may need Windows 10, for example if you are developing for that platform and want to test your software on it. And yes, in 5-10 years you will probably have no other choice.
But in the mean time, it may just as well be the case that Windows 10 does not offer any significant advantage to you over the Windows version that you use right now (but noticeable disadvantages). Reflect carefully.
Just "free offer is running out" is not a valid argument (limited time offers are often a warning sign, just like "I got 3 other customers interested". They're the kind of sales tricks that used car sellers apply to rip off the foolish).
Now, before the inevitable shitstorm from the Win10 fanboys will start, and we will have 350 posts of how great Windows 10 is and how all the massively negative things don't count... please consider two things: