the arabs were right all along!!

another good reason...slowing my bloody web connection up when they all log on.

hotmail is DIRE esp for microsoft, you would think they would have the means to do that right.

 

Re: Robbo

This is topsy-turvy thinking. Whilst it is true that US has managed to get an economic strangle-hold on rest of the world though manipulation of the World Bank and other devious methods, the fundamental fact is that US is desperately dependant on the rest of the world and its natural resources and cheap labour.

Ever increasing consumption of oil mean that from being a net exporter, US has become a net importer of oil. The Middle East has 65% of the world's oil reserves. The US, just 4% of world population, consumes 30% of the world's oil.

US claim to produce more goods. But much of that production cause even more pollution. For example, gas guzzling four-wheel drive SUVs has been blamed as one of the worst polluting culprits.

The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces 24% of all man-made CO2 emissions. By comparison, Britain emits 3% - about the same as India which has 15 times as many people.
The average American produces 6 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton 3 tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.

US economic system survives on growth alone. Growth that relies on ever increasing consumption of energy. A finite resource. Therefore US economic system is not sustainable. US will try to survive by conquering and looting oil from weaker countries. But there is no escape from the fact that even the best estimates show that oil can not last more than 50 years.

The refusal of US to sign the Mine Ban Treaty for example (signed by 138 other countries) represents a particularly worrying aspect of their attitudes and ambitions.

Bush administration, soon after cheating its way into power, waived an agreement to allow Biological Weapons inspections of all countries, and not just certain nations. No-one expected this refusal, and everyone was deeply shocked by the revelation that US itself has stock piles of these kinds of weapons. The message that keep coming across is; America shows a disrespect for Global Consensus on all fronts, frequently ignoring the UN and international agreements.

Sooner the countries of the world move away from trading with US and be influenced by its methods; the better will be the chances of survival for the human race as a whole.

 

No you didn't. Sorry Robbo, only the "why" was for in response to your post. The next paragraph was in response to other posts. Apologies for the confusion

 

Re: Re: Robbo

I'd say that it was Switzerland's historical background, Michael. Ever since those stubbornly independent mountaineers thrashed the Habsburg army at Morgarten in 1315, they have gone their own way, independent of monarchies and central governments. Switzerland only acquired a federal government and a constitution in the late 19th century - before that, it was an agglomeration of independent cantons. Even today, the cantons have considerable powers and the federal government is relatively small. In fact, some people have suggested Switzerland and its federal/cantonal structure as a viable model for Europe.

The other factor is neutrality. The Swiss have not fought anyone since Marignano in 15-somethingorother and the long period of peace has helped - no ruinous wars.

Finally, they have been clever. A small, predominantly mountainous country with few natural resources has become a world leader in some fields. Banking is one aspect, but don't forget the chemical industry of Basel or the machine industry in Zürich. Nestlé is the world's biggest food company. The Swiss make 10% of the world's watches but get 50% of the profit. And then there's chocolate...oh, yes, there's chocolate...

Most people here ignore Christoph Blocher's wilder excesses - he was a successful businessman (his company Ems-Chemie, now run by the family as he's on the Federal Council, is very successful), but he knows how to bang the drum, so that more conservative elements of Swiss society hear it. In any case, most Swiss don't want the EU. By coincidence, a headline in this morning's paper:

JUNGE SCHWEIZER: EU IST KEIN THEMA

Results of a survey of 18-35 year-olds. Only 5% see EU entry as being worth thinking about. Certainly the last referendum on the subject was soundly defeated everywhere, even in the EU-friendly French-speaking cantons.

Of course, in a sense, Switzerland is completely engaged in he EU, being completely surrounded by it, and having to meet many of its regulations. For years it refused to allow 40 t trucks to cross Switzerland (the Swiss upper limit being 28 t), but now they can transit. Last year, a series of bilateral agreements with the EU allow EU citizens to come in and work and take up residence, and vice versa. However, with regard to Swiss EU membership, I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

 

I am not a member of this party and I am not telling anyone to vote for them. I just thought it was food for thought.


http://www.independenceuk.org.uk/index.php?page=10reasonstoleavetheeu

 

Re: Re: Re: Robbo

OK, point(s) taken but with all those bilateral agreements Switzerland is almost a de facto EU member even if it isn't on paper (and of course it doesn't have to pay the EU any money).

The Swiss were for such a long time opposed to joining even the United Nations but they did finally come around. I don't see Switzerland joining the EU in the near future but sometime in the next 10-15 years I think it's a possibility.

Michael.

 

I just read their "10 reasons to leave the EU" and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Point 8 is the most hysterical (in both senses of the word):

Not one iota of that paragraph has any basis in fact whatsoever. It's pure Euro-sceptic delusional paranoia. The last sentence is quite absurd - whoever thought that one up was clearly having to get creative just to fill out the page.

Fortunately though the UKIP can be written off as one of the joke parties that make the ballot paper slightly more amusing.

Michael.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Robbo

Yes, Blocher was dead against, but many of the arguments were such arrant nonsense (e.g. loss of neutrality - as if they'd never heard of Sweden). It was pure little Schweizer paranoia and the population saw through it. Of course, the Tiefschweizer down in Titian's part of the world (Tiefschweizerinnen too - I think they let them out of the house nowadays) weren't happy, but then, apart from Titian, they rarely are).

I'd personally say 20 years+ is more likely, but, as Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics, and who knows what'll happen by then? The latest "Economist" survey showed that the Swiss are becoming more like other Europeans - and, amazingly, are starting to realise that this is so. Whatever next?

 

What I would like to know is What is American oil doing under Iraqi sand.

I.A.

 

While I agree with your sentiments Michael, last Thursday's vote doesn't quite bear this out. Looks like Kilroy is going to make a LOT of noise. The only saving grace is that the opinion surveys seem to show that UKIP voters will go back to a real party (and preferably the LDs ) at then next election. Shame we seem not to be able to take the European Parliament seriously here - it is the one democratic institution in the EU and it would be nice to see it act as a realistic check on the executive.

 

Its' a protective barrier that stops Sadams "Weapons of Mass Destruction" getting into the wrong hands.

 

Is that what you where hoping?

After the recent Euro Elections the UKIP have hopefully shown Mr Blair that not all of us want be part of the Euro sewer. They may never get in to Power but lets hope that they made a point. Even the Tories are slowly backing away from the Euro Zoo.

Lets trade with them yes, but lets not be ruled by them.

As the UKIP said, all the money that we give to the Euro Zoo could be spent on Hospitals & Schools in this country, looking after our Children and Elderly. Instead of it being given to counties who are putting in less money than we are.

Bring Back Maggie - I'm sure if she were still in power we'd be out by now :banana:.

 

Just one question.

If UKIP want to take the UK out of EU why do they want to be elected MEPs?

 

'To wreck it!' according to the great man Kilroy silly man that he is....

I saw Kilroy-Silk interviewed on CH4 the other day, now I didn't catch the entire interview, but his general attitude was 'I'm going to spend as little time in Brussels and the european institutions as possible' along with 'I'm going to expose the mismanagement and corruption of european institutions' - what, from afar, telekinesis perhaps? Hmmm.

Getting involved and cracking the nut from the inside, influencing EU policy to help ease any eventual withdrawal, or change the EU to suit the interests of this country, seems a far better way than just ignoring it as much as possible. On the other hand, perhaps its just democracy in action, constituents who vote for an MEP want absolutely no role in the EU, so their MEPs take no role at all, and do the bare minimum to satisfy their position.

The funny moment of the interview though came for me when asked if, since he was so vehemently against the EU, would he be taking the MEPs salary if elected? He came out with a very weasel worded 'I don't actually need to think about the pay, with what I earn', hinting that he wouldn't, but when pressed to answer with a clear, unambiguous ues or no, he changed to 'I haven't thought about it actually' and refused to say any more.

He came across as a bit of a clown to me as a result....eager to state how he wants nothing to do with being part of the EU, and then that he may earn enough to not need EU money that he is, by rights, actually entitled to as an MEP, but doesn't have the integrity to stand by his earlier words and not take up his salary as an MEP if elected.

 

Kilroy-Silk. God help us. Always came across (to me anyway) as rather intellectually challenged as a TV chat shown host (what a complete load of bollocks that programme was) and little better as a "politician". UKIP = populist, scaremongering shite. Yes we'd all like to see better accountablility in Europe. The UKIP MEP attendances are abysmal by any standards. 554th out of 634 ?? Mind you I'd be interested to know the other UK MEP attndance rates. Maybe MEP's should be paid by attendance rather than a flat salary?

 

IMO that should apply to all politicians.

 

Surely performance related pay would be better. Preferably based on an independant adjudication of how effectively they have met their election pledges...

 

they should all be shot if things aren't better when they leave office than when they take it. simple as that. pay 'em what you like between but if they go up against the wall then 1/2 their assets should be siezed to pay damages.
cheers


julian

 

I find the whole thing really scary – the sheer number of people who voted for either UKIP or the BNP beyond belief. Despite Kilroy-Silk being very publicly dismissed from the BBC for racism people vote for him - WTF?

The main problem IMHO is that neither the government or the media has offered much (if any) in the way of explanation of the draft European Constitution to the electorate as a whole. If people actually realised what it was; that it doesn't effect tax / health / defence etc and effectively just gives them a few more rights, plus puts a few mechanisms in place to improve international trading things may be different.

As ever where there is mass ignorance of facts racist scaremongers can grab hold of the less intelligent and manipulate them. It will be very interesting to see how Blair / Brown etc tackle this one – education, education, education is the way to go IMHO… this will take way more than the odd 3 minute electoral broadcast to get across to those who can't be bothered to read the thing.

Tony.

Who is prepared to bet that the racist opportunist Kilroy-Silk hasn't even read the draft constitution! UK Ignorance Party.