Totally agree but that has got nothing to do with Brexit Steb. That's about a CHANGE in emphasis, government and priorities. We have seen none of that whilst in EU, infact Corbyn has said himself the changes required can NOT happen within EU.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Ok , I confess, I,m sat in a one bed flat in Watford and I,m neither Father Christmas or Zatlan...but its fecking hot for Watford.. And I wish some aspects were fictional. When I get back to Filey OG I,ll show you pictures of my stuff on BVI...( not much to show mind) We could meet up in Whitby..
And I,ve seen your bike..it is definitely pedalling garbage..
How do you spell pedant OG ?
( Would do us good yo meet up, I,ll buy you a pint and apologise for all my bad spelling,not the insults, you enjoy those.)
I suppose somebody saying they are in Spain must be really exotic and borderline fictional when you live in Hull..
Last edited:
Your posts become ever more ironic. What exactly do you think brexit is about? It's about May's hubby's g4s raking in tax payer money and delivering ever less more abusive services to the most vulnerable. That is an analogy for brexit being about the ugliest parts of global capital jumping on an opportunity to asset strip the UK and screw its citizens. And that includes you, who received from the EU the freedom to work and retire with reasonable affluence across a wide range of countries, in relative safety and with protection of your rights as an individual. Think why you choose not to live in say St Lucia? Endemic corruption, crime, elitism (I've lived there). It's all coming your way via brexit.
I,m afraid
A) I don't see it that way.
B) Corbyn/ Labour want to leave EU.
And the endemic corruption you talk of are a way of life in all EU countries I,ve lived in.( apart from France to be fair, but still worse than UK)
Spain and,Greece are appalling and its main reason I moved business from Spain/ Greece to ( unfortunately) BVI...where I lost everything...but for other reasons.
But I agree re May and Hubby G4 etc..but EU did nothing, can do nothing to prevent any of that. Infact ,like I,ve said before, Junker is probably worse.
I,m afraid if we were relying on EU to protect us from Tories...we are fecked.
By the way Steb , you,ve assumed I,m fully retired. Way off mark. I said I,d retired from education. ( after 26 years in it) I,ll assure you there is a massive difference. I,m back doing what I was 5 years ago because of BVI catastophe...ie delivering yachts rather than chartering them.out. If you think that's easy, try it sometime.
And how that has anything to do with asset stripping I have no idea. You sound like Tom. An aggrieved individual blaming who ever he can for situation you find yourself in. I,ve worked fff ing hard from having zilch. Nobody gave me a thing, its your kind with all nastiness and accusations. Many in UK have made a success through hard work. The left wing dream wants that for everybody for nothing. It does not work. The world operates on capitalism and hard work. Unfortunate but true. Hard luck. Get over it.
Last edited:
That's concise for you OG ! Nice one..you coming for that pint. Home next week.
Correct only when that adage is applied to normal human beings - in troll-land, different standards apply......well actually, I don't think trolls have standards at all....or morals or ethics, manners, etiquette or compassion for the human species. They are all of the same tribe by the name of Kerr and share the same first name - can you guess what it is?
Tom
Endemic corruption is part of the human condition. The churches call it sin , and it's been ongoing for millennia since whenever any human societies were formed. Nothing to do with whether it's a socialist, communist, right wing, left wing, capitalist, monarchy or anything else. The only hope is and was ensuring that no single group could gain sufficient power as to stifle other power groups. This is why for instance the UK has armies in each the navy, airforce and land army and the police force.
But having power is not enough, there must be legal accountability.
While corruption is endemic , so also is altruism. As Oscar Wilde put it... "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"
Two bought and paid for judges, part of the elite, have dismissed a very valid argument for a judicial review of the matter, in effect placing the government above the law in this mis-use of public funds for political purposes.
This is the crux of what is wrong with the UK today and a public inquiry would reveal exactly that today's decision is seriously flawed as is the opinion of the twobent learned judges. This should be the subject of a public inquiry.
There is no democracy in the UK and there is no justice.
man-loses-high-court-bid-to-challenge-unlawful-dup-tory-deal-1172437
Tom
This is the crux of what is wrong with the UK today and a public inquiry would reveal exactly that today's decision is seriously flawed as is the opinion of the two
There is no democracy in the UK and there is no justice.
man-loses-high-court-bid-to-challenge-unlawful-dup-tory-deal-1172437
Tom
A classic turn of phrase from Wilde and I liked your whole piece, 'Danidl'. My only wish is that we had some transparent accountability and justice here in the UK.
Tom
This is the summary of the proceedings today at the High Court being passed off as justice:
Lord Justice Sales said neither of the two grounds relied on by Mr McClean in his application was "properly arguable in a court of law".
He added: "Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused."
Stunning!
Tom
Lord Justice Sales said neither of the two grounds relied on by Mr McClean in his application was "properly arguable in a court of law".
He added: "Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused."
Stunning!
Tom
It's true: British universities are grotesquely biased against Brexit
Chris Heaton-Harris MP is in trouble for asking universities for information about their European Studies courses,in a letter widely interpreted as implying massive anti-Brexit bias. If he had asked me, he could have saved himself the bother. I’ve 40 years’ experience of universities’ love affair with the EU.
Between 1980 and 1990, I was Convenor of the MA in European Studies programme at the LSE. I was also co-chairman of its postgraduate European Studies research seminar and met many academics who specialised in the EU. Were they objective?
Many held titles such as Jean Monnet Professor or Jean Monnet Reader or Jean Monnet Lecturer, which implied that they were wholly or partly funded by Brussels. Most worked on the institutions or policies of the EU or on how the process of integration developed. All took it for granted that European unification was a benevolent aim and that integration brought more peace, prosperity and democracy.
By 1990, I no longer believed this, and founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991,which became Ukip in 1993. My students became discontented and told me I should no longer teach them European history (I never lectured on the EU). The LSE supported me, but I gave up teaching my course to go on sabbatical.
My colleagues, however, continued to support the EU. It took a long time before they admitted that there was a democratic deficit or that the euro was not working. Today, leading specialists take a more critical view, but they all hate Brexit.
Curiously, so, too, do most academics who are not specialists in the EU. During the referendum, the universities were mobilised as never before behind Government policy and claimed that Brexit would lead to the withdrawal of all EU research funds and that foreign researchers would no longer come to Britain.
There was no evidence for this. All EU Research Infrastructure Consortia are open to non-member states and member states on the same basis, with equal voting rights. The likes of CERN and the European Space Programme have nothing to do with the EU. In any case, the Government has promised to make good any funding that might be lost.
Nor is there any evidence that academics have been put off coming here. If they have, it can only have been on account of the anti-Brexit scare stories spread by universities themselves. Vice‑chancellors and professors are still writing ill-informed, if not mendacious, letters and articles.
There is no doubt that Brexit is deeply resented by British universities, who see it simplistically as a rejection of international collaboration or even xenophobia. Hence the lettersto their foreign studentsassuring them they are still loved. The fact that institutions dedicated to critical thought can take such a monolithic and unscientific view is bewildering. Our academic nomenklatura and its apparatchiks are behaving like the staff of Soviet universities, following the party line even after the policy has failed.
It gets personal, too. On a recent visit to LSE, I was rebuked by a former pro-director with the words: “You were the only person here who voted for Brexit.” When I attended a leaving party for a colleague, I was accosted by a world-famous historian, who shouted above everyone else in the room: “---- off! You founded Ukip. You are responsible for this mess. So just ---- off!” It took a quarter of an hour to calm him down. Others there clearly agreed with him, although most of my colleagues have behaved admirably.
Does this matter? Most students are intelligent enough to see the defects of the EU and will recognise propaganda when they are offered it. In any case, the majority of university courses have nothing to do with the EU. As for grants and foreign staff, in the end university life will return to normal.
Heaton-Harris could have found most of the information he sought online without upsetting our overpaid and over-sensitive vice-chancellors. But his letter touched a nerve. Universities have a lot to live down. Instead of acting in a neutral manner during the referendum, they behaved in the most grotesquely partisan fashion possible. Let us hope that they have learnt their lesson. They have tarred their reputation for objectivity.
Alan Sked is Emeritus Professor of International History at LSE. He tweets at @profsked
Chris Heaton-Harris MP is in trouble for asking universities for information about their European Studies courses,in a letter widely interpreted as implying massive anti-Brexit bias. If he had asked me, he could have saved himself the bother. I’ve 40 years’ experience of universities’ love affair with the EU.
Between 1980 and 1990, I was Convenor of the MA in European Studies programme at the LSE. I was also co-chairman of its postgraduate European Studies research seminar and met many academics who specialised in the EU. Were they objective?
Many held titles such as Jean Monnet Professor or Jean Monnet Reader or Jean Monnet Lecturer, which implied that they were wholly or partly funded by Brussels. Most worked on the institutions or policies of the EU or on how the process of integration developed. All took it for granted that European unification was a benevolent aim and that integration brought more peace, prosperity and democracy.
By 1990, I no longer believed this, and founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991,which became Ukip in 1993. My students became discontented and told me I should no longer teach them European history (I never lectured on the EU). The LSE supported me, but I gave up teaching my course to go on sabbatical.
My colleagues, however, continued to support the EU. It took a long time before they admitted that there was a democratic deficit or that the euro was not working. Today, leading specialists take a more critical view, but they all hate Brexit.
Curiously, so, too, do most academics who are not specialists in the EU. During the referendum, the universities were mobilised as never before behind Government policy and claimed that Brexit would lead to the withdrawal of all EU research funds and that foreign researchers would no longer come to Britain.
There was no evidence for this. All EU Research Infrastructure Consortia are open to non-member states and member states on the same basis, with equal voting rights. The likes of CERN and the European Space Programme have nothing to do with the EU. In any case, the Government has promised to make good any funding that might be lost.
Nor is there any evidence that academics have been put off coming here. If they have, it can only have been on account of the anti-Brexit scare stories spread by universities themselves. Vice‑chancellors and professors are still writing ill-informed, if not mendacious, letters and articles.
There is no doubt that Brexit is deeply resented by British universities, who see it simplistically as a rejection of international collaboration or even xenophobia. Hence the lettersto their foreign studentsassuring them they are still loved. The fact that institutions dedicated to critical thought can take such a monolithic and unscientific view is bewildering. Our academic nomenklatura and its apparatchiks are behaving like the staff of Soviet universities, following the party line even after the policy has failed.
It gets personal, too. On a recent visit to LSE, I was rebuked by a former pro-director with the words: “You were the only person here who voted for Brexit.” When I attended a leaving party for a colleague, I was accosted by a world-famous historian, who shouted above everyone else in the room: “---- off! You founded Ukip. You are responsible for this mess. So just ---- off!” It took a quarter of an hour to calm him down. Others there clearly agreed with him, although most of my colleagues have behaved admirably.
Does this matter? Most students are intelligent enough to see the defects of the EU and will recognise propaganda when they are offered it. In any case, the majority of university courses have nothing to do with the EU. As for grants and foreign staff, in the end university life will return to normal.
Heaton-Harris could have found most of the information he sought online without upsetting our overpaid and over-sensitive vice-chancellors. But his letter touched a nerve. Universities have a lot to live down. Instead of acting in a neutral manner during the referendum, they behaved in the most grotesquely partisan fashion possible. Let us hope that they have learnt their lesson. They have tarred their reputation for objectivity.
Alan Sked is Emeritus Professor of International History at LSE. He tweets at @profsked
So in fact what you are inferring is that Universities have a Duty to toe the state line with Regard to Brexit, and while it was perfectly understandable and reasonable to be pro EU and support the Government when it's policy was remain.,since the marginal vote for Brexit in the Referendum, it is now Traitorous of them to hold the same opinions that were acceptable to the Government before?It's true: British universities are grotesquely biased against Brexit
Chris Heaton-Harris MP is in trouble for asking universities for information about their European Studies courses,in a letter widely interpreted as implying massive anti-Brexit bias. If he had asked me, he could have saved himself the bother. I’ve 40 years’ experience of universities’ love affair with the EU.
Between 1980 and 1990, I was Convenor of the MA in European Studies programme at the LSE. I was also co-chairman of its postgraduate European Studies research seminar and met many academics who specialised in the EU. Were they objective?
Many held titles such as Jean Monnet Professor or Jean Monnet Reader or Jean Monnet Lecturer, which implied that they were wholly or partly funded by Brussels. Most worked on the institutions or policies of the EU or on how the process of integration developed. All took it for granted that European unification was a benevolent aim and that integration brought more peace, prosperity and democracy.
By 1990, I no longer believed this, and founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991,which became Ukip in 1993. My students became discontented and told me I should no longer teach them European history (I never lectured on the EU). The LSE supported me, but I gave up teaching my course to go on sabbatical.
My colleagues, however, continued to support the EU. It took a long time before they admitted that there was a democratic deficit or that the euro was not working. Today, leading specialists take a more critical view, but they all hate Brexit.
Curiously, so, too, do most academics who are not specialists in the EU. During the referendum, the universities were mobilised as never before behind Government policy and claimed that Brexit would lead to the withdrawal of all EU research funds and that foreign researchers would no longer come to Britain.
There was no evidence for this. All EU Research Infrastructure Consortia are open to non-member states and member states on the same basis, with equal voting rights. The likes of CERN and the European Space Programme have nothing to do with the EU. In any case, the Government has promised to make good any funding that might be lost.
Nor is there any evidence that academics have been put off coming here. If they have, it can only have been on account of the anti-Brexit scare stories spread by universities themselves. Vice‑chancellors and professors are still writing ill-informed, if not mendacious, letters and articles.
There is no doubt that Brexit is deeply resented by British universities, who see it simplistically as a rejection of international collaboration or even xenophobia. Hence the lettersto their foreign studentsassuring them they are still loved. The fact that institutions dedicated to critical thought can take such a monolithic and unscientific view is bewildering. Our academic nomenklatura and its apparatchiks are behaving like the staff of Soviet universities, following the party line even after the policy has failed.
It gets personal, too. On a recent visit to LSE, I was rebuked by a former pro-director with the words: “You were the only person here who voted for Brexit.” When I attended a leaving party for a colleague, I was accosted by a world-famous historian, who shouted above everyone else in the room: “---- off! You founded Ukip. You are responsible for this mess. So just ---- off!” It took a quarter of an hour to calm him down. Others there clearly agreed with him, although most of my colleagues have behaved admirably.
Does this matter? Most students are intelligent enough to see the defects of the EU and will recognise propaganda when they are offered it. In any case, the majority of university courses have nothing to do with the EU. As for grants and foreign staff, in the end university life will return to normal.
Heaton-Harris could have found most of the information he sought online without upsetting our overpaid and over-sensitive vice-chancellors. But his letter touched a nerve. Universities have a lot to live down. Instead of acting in a neutral manner during the referendum, they behaved in the most grotesquely partisan fashion possible. Let us hope that they have learnt their lesson. They have tarred their reputation for objectivity.
Alan Sked is Emeritus Professor of International History at LSE. He tweets at @profsked
That is Hypocrisy..nothing more...nothing less
Now the Government requires their understanding of the situation and assessent has to bow to the will of the public which made a decisions as a protest vote of some sort based on a pack of lies and false promises?
Lets examine what is going on here.
On the one side we have Academia, the cream of the intellectual crop of the nation that has not changed it's considered opinion on the value of EU membership.
On the other side we have a Government that wants to tell the Universities how to think.
That sounds like a North Korean viewpoint to me.
Frankly you and your Government would do better to leave thinking to the Qualified.
When Universities become instruments of propaganda FOR the Government, we are no better that Communist States where dissent is suppressed, or even worse the Fascist ones that cost us so much to destroy.
There is nothing Grotesque about sticking to the Truth, and Universities are not so stupid as to support something they know to be against the interest of the Nation.
History will not record that the Universities are being Grotesque, but that this Government was the worst we have ever had.
The day will come when people are ashamed to admit they ever voted for it, and Brexit too.
Last edited:
OK let's get nautical,Brexit is like a forecast storm,should we heave to,batten down the hatches,snuggle inside the lee cloth and ride it out.
Or,should be get the oilies on,put a bit of canvas up and try to steer through the worst of it.
Or are we going to drown anyway so get the whisky out and don't care.
Dave
Or,should be get the oilies on,put a bit of canvas up and try to steer through the worst of it.
Or are we going to drown anyway so get the whisky out and don't care.
Dave
You really do think this - amazing! Perhaps we should all do that - let the academics run the place.
One must conclude that the answer is a Dear John... OG will be a Gin drinker I suspect.
Alan Sked must be incredibly gullible to believe this.
A government that may shortly be led by the man who still insists the certain lie that the EU cost us £350 millions per week is the truth.
.