Your "left-wing biased BBC" whines are invalid

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:24 pm

It certainly looks like the Fur-her

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:27 pm

The cat wouldn't have had these problems if he looked like Chairman Meow

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:34 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:In the 21st century it's way past its sell by date. The decision not to extend John Holmes, of the Now Show, on radio 4, cos he was "WHITE AND MALE" sums it up.

Ah, so that's how Miles Jupp got the News Quiz job

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:15 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:

I think that, with respect, you and nils_d and others on here, since the day after the referendum result have wanted such an outcome as I have described.

Really not sure why you've dragged me into a thread to which I have not contributed whatsoever, but for the record:
I advocated Remain and voted that way, and so far as I'm aware 95% of my friends and family did. (Not that that's relevant).
Did I /do I accept Brexit? I accepted it and its consequences on June 24th, and have been preparing for it ever since, (probably more so than the Government).
Do I favour staying in the Single market and customs union? - yes, (as I suspect do the majority), but I've never really seen it as a likely option, especially as that would mean retaining freedom of movement (which the majority don't).
Furthermore I can't see much point in spending billions to get out of the EU and then continuing to pay back into it in order to regain the benefits that we have just given away. (Which, by the way, is what quite a few on the "leave" side were advocating prior to the referendum - "We can follow the Norway model" etc. etc.
So far as I see it, we're coming out - and that's it, but I will continue to fight for the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK to be guaranteed. (It's perfectly possible to support this without overturning the Brexit vote.It's just the decent and moral thing to do.
Should the EU be reformed? - yes without doubt.
Am I part of some kind of liberal elite? - definitely not. (Working class mining background in Burnley).
Why am I concerned about it? because I think that the poorest in society, and those from the traditional Labour heartlands will be badly affected, (as do the majority of Labour voters by the way). I also believe that it will prevent the younger generation from enjoying many of the opportunities that I and my own children have enjoyed over the past 40 years or so.
Will it affect me? It will obviously affect everyone (for better or for worse), but I would imagine that myself and family will be less affected than most, especially since all my close family (except - ironically me) were - or are now, EU nationals and will therefore (hopefully) get the best of both worlds.
I'm retired - except for some casual self-employed work, and my wife's business is registered in UK and the EU, and operates in Euros, so that shouldn't change. I can also spend more time at our home in France (should I wish to do so), so long as I get home for home matches, and if the pound continues to fall against the Euro then theoretically at least the value of my assets in France will increase.
Failing that my wife is pretty keen to return to her roots in Eire once she retires, so we may end up back in the EU anyway.
I won't be celebrating if Brexit turns out badly, but at least I won't suddenly be forced to admit that I had made a bad choice based on misinformation.
I do, of course, hope for a good outcome, since not only is it in Britain's best interests but also the best interests of a stable Europe.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:31 pm

54...hmmm..I'm not sure that I 'dragged' anyone into anything...is that what is meant by 'emotive language'?

- I did politely mention your name that's for sure...[as an example]

The rest of your long post shows why I name checked you..

1] you have contributed I believe to just about every previous 'Brexit' thread.

2] you have been one of the prominent campaigners for the 'Remain' camp, on this forum.

3] I was not referring to you as a member of a liberal elite...I used the phrase..'and others'.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:32 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:The whinging and whining that has taken place since June 23 last year is unseemly, embarrassing and tedious.

...followed by five paragraphs worth of whinging and whining about the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:37 pm

I particularly liked the 1940s reference to the Germans.

I mean, name of major European country that hasn't tried to dominate Europe at one time or another.

Our history is fantastic, and we are rightly a very proud nation, but we don't forget in a hurry (unless its a defeat!)

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:44 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:54.

- I did politely mention your name that's for sure...[as an example]

The rest of your long post shows why I name checked you..

1] you have contributed I believe to just about every previous 'Brexit' thread.

2] you have been one of the prominent campaigners for the 'Remain' camp, on this forum.

3] I was not referring to you as a member of a liberal elite...I used the phrase..'and others'.

So why "name-check" me when I haven't even commented on the thread. You could have chosen any of the many contributors to this particular thread. Just seems odd to me.
1. It's theoretically possible, that I have contributed to EVERY previous Brexit thread, but there have been so many that I very much doubt it.
2. I'm not going to apologise for that. I have my view, and you have yours, (which I totally respect). I haven't checked how many Brexit posts you have contributed, but I'm very happy for you to do so and continue to do so. It's one of the freedoms that we have always cherished in this country. It only seems to be in the past 9 months that only one point of view can be tolerated, and if you disagree then then you are a "remoaner".
3. So again I ask, why not just refer to "others" or "many" rather than highlighting my name?. It seems a bit weird to me, when up to that point I had chosen not to contribute to this thread.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:48 pm

56..Well not really Greenmile...the ten sentences that I wrote in ten minutes, are not comparable with the 'noise from 17 million 'remoaners' since last June 2016.

Lancaster...I cannot claim originality for the idea that if Germany cannot control Europe militarily, it will eventually do it financially...I read it from someone 'quite good'.

To take up your challenge..what about these..?

Belgium
Eire
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Malta
Finland
Iceland
Andorra
Faroe Islands
Lichtenstein.

How did I do?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:50 pm

nil_d...fine, I apologise for mentioning you.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:00 pm

Is it definitely a 'left wing' protest thing? It's just I can't find all the looting and rioting at the link.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:04 pm

Not sure that any of them count as a "major" power though Hampstead!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:06 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote: Lancaster...I cannot claim originality for the idea that if Germany cannot control Europe militarily, it will eventually do it financially...I read it from someone 'quite good'.

To take up your challenge..what about these..?

Belgium
Eire
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Malta
Finland
Iceland
Andorra
Faroe Islands
Lichtenstein.

How did I do?

Sorry. It's my turn to stalk you now!

You didn't really do very well, since Lancaster said "major European country", and I don't think anyone would regard any on that list as major.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:08 pm

sorry just spotted that...you did say 'major' didn't you?

That has deflated me.

Okay 1-0 to you.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:18 pm

No bother mate, its just that it does get on my tits somewhat when people bring up the Germans past in relation to the current issues.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:36 pm

See here for an explanation of this silly idea:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... nteresting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as it applied to "anti-austerity" it applies to "pro-EU".

When lefties decide to do something productive THAT will be a news story. Lefties stage a small to medium sized march is not news.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:50 pm

In fairness with things like this going on at the March you can't quite believe they didn't get coverage

https://www.facebook.com/raheemjkassam/ ... 440686327/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PutTheWheelieBinsOut · Post by **PutTheWheelieBinsOut** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:05 pm

The march was a bit of political opportunism organised largely by the irrelevant Liberal Democrats. So lets not hide what it actually was, thats why no one was interested. They hope to mop up the votes of the remainers.

Lets remember what Lord Ashdown said on the referendum night "I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent." When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t."

They actually believe we should have a third referendum on the final deal, like people in Europe would not give us the worse possible deal if they knew that if the people rejected the terms we would stay in Europe.

Finally the remainers, if Europe is so awesome, why wouldn't it want to abide by their own treaty obligations to treat their neighbours in Europe fairly. It's like you don't trust those unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to give us a fair deal???

Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty instructs the EU to develop a “special relationship with neighbouring countries", furthermore in the text it says "‘special relationship’ is aimed at establishing “an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

Do the remainers simply not trust the EU to live up to their legal obligations???

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:22 pm

PutTheWheelieBinsOut wrote: Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty instructs the EU to develop a “special relationship with neighbouring countries", furthermore in the text it says "‘special relationship’ is aimed at establishing “an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

Do the remainers simply not trust the EU to live up to their legal obligations???

I think most remainers do believe / fear that the EU will expect all legal obligations to be fulfilled.
The problem with this is that it is likely to leave us with a hefty exit bill, and that we can expect to be treated in a similar way to Norway and Switzerland if we want access to the single market etc.
Of course they will want to co-operate with us, but in exchange, as you correctly state, they would expect us to at least partly embrace "the values of the Union"
There are 4 fundamental underlying principles: these include freedoms of movement of goods, services and people.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:19 pm

aggi wrote:Ah, so that's how Miles Jupp got the News Quiz job

Dont know fella, but mr Holmes appears convinced that his contract wasnt renewed due to his gender and race.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... ite-and-m/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:07 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Really not sure why you've dragged me into a thread to which I have not contributed whatsoever, but for the record:
I advocated Remain and voted that way, and so far as I'm aware 95% of my friends and family did. (Not that that's relevant).
Did I /do I accept Brexit? I accepted it and its consequences on June 24th, and have been preparing for it ever since, (probably more so than the Government).
Do I favour staying in the Single market and customs union? - yes, (as I suspect do the majority), but I've never really seen it as a likely option, especially as that would mean retaining freedom of movement (which the majority don't).
Furthermore I can't see much point in spending billions to get out of the EU and then continuing to pay back into it in order to regain the benefits that we have just given away. (Which, by the way, is what quite a few on the "leave" side were advocating prior to the referendum - "We can follow the Norway model" etc. etc.
So far as I see it, we're coming out - and that's it, but I will continue to fight for the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK to be guaranteed. (It's perfectly possible to support this without overturning the Brexit vote.It's just the decent and moral thing to do.
Should the EU be reformed? - yes without doubt.
Am I part of some kind of liberal elite? - definitely not. (Working class mining background in Burnley).
Why am I concerned about it? because I think that the poorest in society, and those from the traditional Labour heartlands will be badly affected, (as do the majority of Labour voters by the way). I also believe that it will prevent the younger generation from enjoying many of the opportunities that I and my own children have enjoyed over the past 40 years or so.
Will it affect me? It will obviously affect everyone (for better or for worse), but I would imagine that myself and family will be less affected than most, especially since all my close family (except - ironically me) were - or are now, EU nationals and will therefore (hopefully) get the best of both worlds.
I'm retired - except for some casual self-employed work, and my wife's business is registered in UK and the EU, and operates in Euros, so that shouldn't change. I can also spend more time at our home in France (should I wish to do so), so long as I get home for home matches, and if the pound continues to fall against the Euro then theoretically at least the value of my assets in France will increase.
Failing that my wife is pretty keen to return to her roots in Eire once she retires, so we may end up back in the EU anyway.
I won't be celebrating if Brexit turns out badly, but at least I won't suddenly be forced to admit that I had made a bad choice based on misinformation.
I do, of course, hope for a good outcome, since not only is it in Britain's best interests but also the best interests of a stable Europe.

Hi nil_d,

Great post. A well made argument for your position. I'm glad that you joined this brexit thread.

In my view, all of the brexit discussions are all part of one enormous thread.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:07 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I think most remainers do believe / fear that the EU will expect all legal obligations to be fulfilled.
The problem with this is that it is likely to leave us with a hefty exit bill, and that we can expect to be treated in a similar way to Norway and Switzerland if we want access to the single market etc.
Of course they will want to co-operate with us, but in exchange, as you correctly state, they would expect us to at least partly embrace "the values of the Union"
There are 4 fundamental underlying principles: these include freedoms of movement of goods, services and people.

Remainers are very selective in quoting the four freedoms...very little progress has been made on Services. The Germans, French and Italians have either blocked reforms, or written EU legislation into their own laws in such a way that they are easily circumvented, to apportion contracts and work to native Companies. Go to France, all their Police vehicles, Government cars etc are Citroens, Renaults or Peugeots....Germany, BMW's, Mercedes or VW/Audi group.

In contrast, the " Sir Humphreys " of the British Civil Service, drawn from the major Public Schools and Oxbridge, have consistantly " Gold plated " EU Laws and regulations to the letter, to prove that we're good " Europeans ". Very few, if any, have any experience in industry or working for Companies that have to make a profit to survive !!

The death knell for our membership of the EU, though, was when Blair allowed the accession Countries citizens unlimited access to the UK in the early 2000's, rather than use the option to allow only limited numbers in for a period...

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:13 pm

PutTheWheelieBinsOut wrote:The march was a bit of political opportunism organised largely by the irrelevant Liberal Democrats. So lets not hide what it actually was, thats why no one was interested. They hope to mop up the votes of the remainers.

Lets remember what Lord Ashdown said on the referendum night "I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent." When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t."

They actually believe we should have a third referendum on the final deal, like people in Europe would not give us the worse possible deal if they knew that if the people rejected the terms we would stay in Europe.

Finally the remainers, if Europe is so awesome, why wouldn't it want to abide by their own treaty obligations to treat their neighbours in Europe fairly. It's like you don't trust those unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to give us a fair deal???

Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty instructs the EU to develop a “special relationship with neighbouring countries", furthermore in the text it says "‘special relationship’ is aimed at establishing “an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

Do the remainers simply not trust the EU to live up to their legal obligations???

Great contribution, PTWBO (hope user name abbreviation is OK). I've not heard of Article 8. of course, it's an important part of a great institution. if EU lives up to Article 8 we will all be fine post-Brexit.

I fully support UK honouring all obligations to pay what is due to EU. But, I can't believe we've run up a tab of £60bn (or perhaps just euros) that must be settled as part of Article 50.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:36 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
I fully support UK honouring all obligations to pay what is due to EU. But, I can't believe we've run up a tab of £60bn (or perhaps just euros) that must be settled as part of Article 50.

Hi Paul,
Decent article from BBC website (linked below) - which I think is reasonably balanced. It tries to explain how the 60 billion Euros figure can be arrived at, and then the more likely figures that we might reasonably be expected to pay, and the timescale.
It's basically all to do with us potentially being liable for a percentage of the EUs ("shared") debt, the commitment we have already signed up to to finance projects in the future, and continued funding of pensions etc.
We are also entitled to claim our percentage of assets on leaving. It's very much like a divorce settlement tbh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39280813" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:35 pm

Negotiating the financial obligations at Brexit will be interesting. I don't think this should be considered a "divorce settlement", so it shouldn't be a division of assets and ongoing living costs and provision for children.

The existence of Article 50, demonstrates that EU considered the possibility of member(s) leaving the EU. What they should also have done is set out the rights and obligations of all members at the time of the departure. As we've not heard any discussion of these provisions, it's a reasonable bet that they didn't agree what would happen - they just hoped it never would.

So, now they need to agree some principles. It's probable that the discussion will be all related to the UK leaving - a major net contributor to EU. Maybe the principles should start with consideration of any member state leaving - without regard to whether they were net contributor or net recipient of EU funds. So, maybe there could be equality in the answer to the question, if net recipient leaves how many years after leaving will the EU continue to spend money in my country, v if net contributor was leaving?

If the EU has borrowed money - let's say they've borrowed money in the same way as countries borrow money - then the obligations of the separate members of the EU will be determined by the documentation governing each of those loans.

EU "5 year budget" - or whatever period the EU has planned future expenditure - might include an assumption that funds will be provided by all the existing members at the time the budget (and what the budget would be spent on) was agreed/approved. Or, there may be nothing said about these matters - and the withdrawal of a net contributor may require the budget to be revised, without the leaving member's contributions.

Pensions - I can see an argument that says that pensions are deferred pay, so UK should have a responsibility for the UK's share of the pensions that exist at the point of leaving. But, I'd be surprised if these obligations are documented. (I can also see separation of UK's own staff working in Brussels where pensions should be UK responsibility and EU staff, assuming these distinctions exist). I dislike pensions as an unfunded obligation - but I'm pretty sure that is the approach the EU has taken (just as the UK gov't has taken this approach with many public sector pensions).

It is highly probable that only a political agreement is possible on an "exit payment" - because the EU and all it's politicians will not have planned for this event. I wonder if the politicians and the media will admit to this failing?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:12 am

When we joined the EEC, which later transferred its liabilities to the EU, we didn't receive any benefit for the liabilities we took on. It was a matter of bring in your assets without compensation, and take on your share of pre-existing liabilities. I reckon we should leave on the same basis - take out our assets (ie. fishing rights) without compensation, and leave behind our share of liabilities.

More seriously, I suspect we'll be landed with the pensions bill, even though pensions are dependent on the recipient saying nice things about the EU - if you express disapproval of the EU, your pension gets taken off you. So basically we would be forced to pay pensions to people who are contractually bound to support a foreign power ahead of British interests.

But I can't see any logic for saying that future infrastructure projects in Europe will be chargeable to Britain. I bet any future infrastructure projects in Britain will be cancelled soon enough, they won't be paying for British building in three-four-five years time.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:13 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I particularly liked the 1940s reference to the Germans.

I mean, name of major European country that hasn't tried to dominate Europe at one time or another.

Poland.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:23 am

dsr wrote:When we joined the EEC, which later transferred its liabilities to the EU, we didn't receive any benefit for the liabilities we took on. It was a matter of bring in your assets without compensation, and take on your share of pre-existing liabilities. I reckon we should leave on the same basis - take out our assets (ie. fishing rights) without compensation, and leave behind our share of liabilities.

More seriously, I suspect we'll be landed with the pensions bill, even though pensions are dependent on the recipient saying nice things about the EU - if you express disapproval of the EU, your pension gets taken off you. So basically we would be forced to pay pensions to people who are contractually bound to support a foreign power ahead of British interests.

But I can't see any logic for saying that future infrastructure projects in Europe will be chargeable to Britain. I bet any future infrastructure projects in Britain will be cancelled soon enough, they won't be paying for British building in three-four-five years time.

Hi dsr. Is that right about the terms of EU pensions? Has anyone told Nigel Farage (I'm pretty sure MEPs will qualify for EU pensions). I guess it explains Nick Clegg - why are we seeing more of Clegg these last few days?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:48 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi dsr. Is that right about the terms of EU pensions? Has anyone told Nigel Farage (I'm pretty sure MEPs will qualify for EU pensions). I guess it explains Nick Clegg - why are we seeing more of Clegg these last few days?

It's right, but it's never been tried in Court. I can't see (assuming the ECJ has any pretentions to impartiality) how it could stand up.

The real irony is that anyone speaking in the House of Lords who has a vested interest in any subject other than the EU has to declare it in advance. For example, one peer who has a mentally handicapped child has to declare it every time he speaks on anything to do with disability. But this doesn't apply to peers who live off the EU gravy train - they don't have to declare any interest in why they're pro-EU. Even though their pension depends on it.

Quote from the Spectator:

"Peers are obliged to declare any interest that ‘might be thought by a reasonable member of the public’ to influence the way they discharge their parliamentary duties — unless it is an EU pension. In 2007, a Lords subcommittee said that because their contracts oblige them to support the EU, an EC pensioner who made ‘intemperate criticism of the commission’ would have contravened their obligations under the Treaty of Rome ‘and therefore could in theory damage his pension’. Nonetheless, the subcommittee concluded, in a magnificent non sequitur, ‘There was no doubt of the integrity of the members of the House who had served as EU commissioners and it would be distasteful to call on them to declare their interest when speaking.’ Distasteful!"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/d ... -interest/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:57 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I mean, name of major European country that hasn't tried to dominate Europe at one time or another.

I like that question.

I would suggest the UK/England (we've been in parts of France but nowhere else I think. We've usually tried tom play off one European power with another so that none dominate).
The Dutch (who were a major power at one point).
Portugal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:09 am

Ah Dsr, you clearly haven't had a look at a map of Europe when Poland and Lithuania were united in the 13th and 14th centuries!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:14 am

Hipper,

"Dominate" isn't just about military force, our control of trade over the centuries (but particularly in the 19th century) meant we dominated what Europe did. Ditto the Dutch in the centuries before that.

Portugal empire gave it some clout, and it did spend a substantial part of the period as part of Spain (who certainly dominated in the 15th/16th)

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:46 am

dsr wrote:It's right, but it's never been tried in Court. I can't see (assuming the ECJ has any pretentions to impartiality) how it could stand up.

The real irony is that anyone speaking in the House of Lords who has a vested interest in any subject other than the EU has to declare it in advance. For example, one peer who has a mentally handicapped child has to declare it every time he speaks on anything to do with disability. But this doesn't apply to peers who live off the EU gravy train - they don't have to declare any interest in why they're pro-EU. Even though their pension depends on it.

Quote from the Spectator:

"Peers are obliged to declare any interest that ‘might be thought by a reasonable member of the public’ to influence the way they discharge their parliamentary duties — unless it is an EU pension. In 2007, a Lords subcommittee said that because their contracts oblige them to support the EU, an EC pensioner who made ‘intemperate criticism of the commission’ would have contravened their obligations under the Treaty of Rome ‘and therefore could in theory damage his pension’. Nonetheless, the subcommittee concluded, in a magnificent non sequitur, ‘There was no doubt of the integrity of the members of the House who had served as EU commissioners and it would be distasteful to call on them to declare their interest when speaking.’ Distasteful!"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/d ... -interest/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've argued a number of times that the "House of Lords" should be replaced by a "House of Knowledgeable Persons" - i.e take the politicians out of the second chamber and also take away the title "lord" that they assume sets them above the rest of us.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:26 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ah Dsr, you clearly haven't had a look at a map of Europe when Poland and Lithuania were united in the 13th and 14th centuries!

You beat me to it - as is often the case Lancaster.
I believe that in that period the Polish Empire stretched from beyond Tallin in the North-East right down to the Caspian and Black Seas, and further west than it does currently.
In terms of land area, it was by far the largest in Europe, and I think in the entire history of Europe, only surpassed in dimensions by the Roman Empire, Nazi-occupied territories and Napoleonic rule, but the 2 latter were never really established as Empires, since they were continually at war and relatively short-lived.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hipper,

"Dominate" isn't just about military force, our control of trade over the centuries (but particularly in the 19th century) meant we dominated what Europe did. Ditto the Dutch in the centuries before that.

Portugal empire gave it some clout, and it did spend a substantial part of the period as part of Spain (who certainly dominated in the 15th/16th)

We were originally talking about Germany attempting to dominate Europe via two World Wars so I naturally assumed a political/military domination. But it was your question!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:41 pm

Well in my defence Hampstead bought up the war, I just thought it was worth mentioning that attempting to control Europe was something that everybody tries at one time or another.

lancastrian · Post by **lancastrian** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:14 pm

If you think that the BBC has a left wing bias you should have been around in the 1950's when the Conservative Government had a lot of input by appointing one of its own MP'S as Chairman, I can't remember the Daily Mail complaining then.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:37 pm

For every family paying the £145.50 licence fee, the BBC spends £80 in the North of England, £122 in Wales, a mere £12 in the Midlands… and £757 in London.

If not biased to the left. Definitely London centric.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/busines ... ce-8721958" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:46 am

The BBC has a bias towards whatever government is in power. And no matter what its bias, its reporting is almost entirely accurate and fair and they correct their errors. All this is more than i can say for any privately owned news organisation.

there's a reason the BBc is revered pretty much worldwide in a way that no other news origanisation is.

geopancake · Post by **geopancake** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:05 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I particularly liked the 1940s reference to the Germans.

I mean, name of major European country that hasn't tried to dominate Europe at one time or another.

Our history is fantastic, and we are rightly a very proud nation, but we don't forget in a hurry (unless its a defeat!)

Grand Fenwick...

Oh wait a minute