Frozen Britain

Christophe3967

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

The problem with endorsing population control is the short step (in some minds) to eugenics, etc. My view is that populations can be brought to a manageable state by education. Women, given adequate information and support can manage the matter personally.

This will involve the education of the population in the developing countries. There is a connection between better literacy rates and a lower birth rate. Population control doesn't have to be oppressive.

Unfortunately politics/religion gets in the way. However a well educated populace will run things better. Oddly, the growth of the population of the USA seems rooted in immigration, the longer-settled sections show little growth, and some are shrinking.

Yep. Same in Canada, I think.

I think we're all being a little gloomy here (including David Attenborough). but are we approaching the problem from the wrong perspective? Where's the evidence that we're close to a tipping point in terms of population? Prosperity has historically been associated with rapid population growth e.g. UK in the second half of the 19th century, with Hong Kong perhaps the most recent example. As the BBC programme pointed out, the population of the world has risen by a factor of six, but output over the same period has risen by a factor of 80. A rapidly growing population can be equated with rising prosperity and wealth creation. The birth rate then decreases as people make "lifestyle choices". People are not problems. They solve problems. I'm all for education, but it must be left to individuals to decide how many children they want. Governments need to butt out of our lives. :roll:

We can produce enough food if we personally stop wasting so much, and collectively rid ourselves of barriers to free trade. How much perectly good food gets binned in the UK each week? How much fish gets thrown away and wasted beacause of EU fishing regulations? £30billion each year on the Common Agricultaral Policy so that French farmers receive a price for their sugar which is three times higher than the world price (for example). :evil: How are African countries supposed to cope with that ffs?

Countries with starving people are suffering from too much government, not too much population. Has there been a famine in the 20th century that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, or political retribution? How much more food could have been produced in the Ukraine and Russia had Stalin not been around? Instead hundreds of thousands of lives were lost through starvation, with similar results more recently in Zimbabwe.

Raw agricultural commodity prices, over the past 100 years or so, have fallen in real terms, driven by increases in yields. Interference from governments and the rising cost of labour (surely a sign of prosperity and a shortage of supply?) are the only factors that have pushed prices higher.

The real challenge is how we roll back the power of the state, without which we really do have problems.

Sewinman

Let me guess - you vote Lib Dem?



All that monetarist free market rubbish reminds me of that Calvin Harris track - 'Acceptable in the 80s'.

Christophe3967

Sewinman wrote:

Let me guess - you vote Lib Dem?



All that monetarist free market rubbish reminds me of that Calvin Harris track - 'Acceptable in the 80s'.

You play the man, leave me the ball eh?

Sewinman

Christophe3967 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Let me guess - you vote Lib Dem?



All that monetarist free market rubbish reminds me of that Calvin Harris track - 'Acceptable in the 80s'.

You play the man, leave me the ball eh?

I can't be *rsed.

Christophe3967

Sewinman wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Let me guess - you vote Lib Dem?



All that monetarist free market rubbish reminds me of that Calvin Harris track - 'Acceptable in the 80s'.

You play the man, leave me the ball eh?

I can't be *rsed.

Ah well. We'll just have to struggle on and manage without your insights I guess.

Stone Glider

AT: when men start bearing babies then they will have equal "responsibilty". At the moment women are the key constituancy. Many societies with high birth rates have imbalances in the power/status of the sexes.

This topic has wandered further than most.

suzyb

Stone Glider wrote:

AT: when men start bearing babies then they will have equal "responsibilty". At the moment women are the key constituancy. Many societies with high birth rates have imbalances in the power/status of the sexes.

This topic has wandered further than most.

I've not been keeping close tabs on this thread so I may have missed something.

But global warming is women's fault because we're the ones that have the kids and therefore increase the population :shock:

always_tyred

-null- wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

AT: when men start bearing babies then they will have equal "responsibilty". At the moment women are the key constituancy. Many societies with high birth rates have imbalances in the power/status of the sexes.

This topic has wandered further than most.

I've not been keeping close tabs on this thread so I may have missed something.

But global warming is women's fault because we're the ones that have the kids and therefore increase the population :shock:

Wow. I've clearly not thought enough about human reproduction. There was me thinking it required one hoohadilly and one cha cha. Well, it turns out that the cha cha's ought to just behave.

Stone Glider

Whats with all this blame stuff? All I am saying is that women have a larger role in bringing children into the world and sustaining them than men. Fathers are often at the birth of a child but mothers are always there.

Accordingly women are more important and deserve to be accorded more power/influence/control in society in these matters.

suzyb

Stone Glider wrote:

Whats with all this blame stuff? All I am saying is that women have a larger role in bringing children into the world and sustaining them than men. Fathers are often at the birth of a child but mothers are always there.

Accordingly women are more important and deserve to be accorded more power/influence/control in society in these matters.

Ah understand what you mean now.

Wallace1492

I saw The Road last night, and it seems to be the future of manking unless we can stop out headlong rush to destruction.

suzyb

Wallace1492 wrote:

I saw The Road last night, and it seems to be the future of manking unless we can stop out headlong rush to destruction.

Just read the synopsis...sounds cheery

amnezia

Wallace1492 wrote:

I saw The Road last night, and it seems to be the future of manking unless we can stop out headlong rush to destruction.

The Road is about a post apocalyptic world where society as we know it no longer exists. Climate change, whether caused by humans or not, will not be an apocalyptic event. It will happen slowly and humans will adapt to some extent as has been demonstrated many times in the past 200,000 years.

prawny

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I saw The Road last night, and it seems to be the future of manking unless we can stop out headlong rush to destruction.

Just read the synopsis...sounds cheery

I read the book last year, I thought at the time if they make a film of this there's going to be some depressed people walking around, very stark, I don't know how many of the really grim bits will make the film, wallace I may pm you.

Wallace1492

prawny wrote:

-null- wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I saw The Road last night, and it seems to be the future of manking unless we can stop out headlong rush to destruction.

Just read the synopsis...sounds cheery

I read the book last year, I thought at the time if they make a film of this there's going to be some depressed people walking around, very stark, I don't know how many of the really grim bits will make the film, wallace I may pm you.

Not all of the really grim bits made it but a few did. It is actually a really good film, but it would help if you have read the book first, or at least know that you won't be coming out humming a tune and singing a song, although the soundrack by Nick Cave is very good.

I would recomend it however.

Wallace1492

Christophe3967 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

The problem with endorsing population control is the short step (in some minds) to eugenics, etc. My view is that populations can be brought to a manageable state by education. Women, given adequate information and support can manage the matter personally.

This will involve the education of the population in the developing countries. There is a connection between better literacy rates and a lower birth rate. Population control doesn't have to be oppressive.

Unfortunately politics/religion gets in the way. However a well educated populace will run things better. Oddly, the growth of the population of the USA seems rooted in immigration, the longer-settled sections show little growth, and some are shrinking.

Yep. Same in Canada, I think.

I think we're all being a little gloomy here (including David Attenborough). but are we approaching the problem from the wrong perspective? Where's the evidence that we're close to a tipping point in terms of population? Prosperity has historically been associated with rapid population growth e.g. UK in the second half of the 19th century, with Hong Kong perhaps the most recent example. As the BBC programme pointed out, the population of the world has risen by a factor of six, but output over the same period has risen by a factor of 80. A rapidly growing population can be equated with rising prosperity and wealth creation. The birth rate then decreases as people make "lifestyle choices". People are not problems. They solve problems. I'm all for education, but it must be left to individuals to decide how many children they want. Governments need to butt out of our lives. :roll:

We can produce enough food if we personally stop wasting so much, and collectively rid ourselves of barriers to free trade. How much perectly good food gets binned in the UK each week? How much fish gets thrown away and wasted beacause of EU fishing regulations? £30billion each year on the Common Agricultaral Policy so that French farmers receive a price for their sugar which is three times higher than the world price (for example). :evil: How are African countries supposed to cope with that ffs?

Countries with starving people are suffering from too much government, not too much population. Has there been a famine in the 20th century that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, or political retribution? How much more food could have been produced in the Ukraine and Russia had Stalin not been around? Instead hundreds of thousands of lives were lost through starvation, with similar results more recently in Zimbabwe.

Raw agricultural commodity prices, over the past 100 years or so, have fallen in real terms, driven by increases in yields. Interference from governments and the rising cost of labour (surely a sign of prosperity and a shortage of supply?) are the only factors that have pushed prices higher.

The real challenge is how we roll back the power of the state, without which we really do have problems.

Some very valid points, however would challenge a few - it is not too much goverment that has led to starvations and famine, but ineffectual, fradulant, corrupt regimes. Some cats get fatter while millions starve.

Where there is high infant mortality, birth rates will remain high, so that the family have a few surviving offspring to look after them when they are too old to work, thereby increasing population in the poorest countries - yes, a lifestyle choice, but one through necessity rather than choice.

The problem with the power of the state is not so much in a democratic western country, as we can vote a new lot in, but in the developing countries where there is so much corruption, backhanders and abuse of power.

Christophe3967

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

always_tyred

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

This is a completely hysterical over statement.

Sewinman

Always Tyred wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

This is a completely hysterical over statement.

More or a calculated one I should imagine.

Eau Rouge

Sewinman wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

This is a completely hysterical over statement.

More or a calculated one I should imagine.

From how I understand the EU to work (in theory and in practise) I'd call it a flat out lie.

Wallace1492

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

No, we can vote a new one in. We are still in charge of our own destiny as a country. However I have no problems with being part of a Greater Europe, there are huge advantages to us all in this. Of course there are a lot of things to sort out, and there will be plenty of people that oppose certain things, but it is there for the greater good of us all.
If it got so bad, we could simply have a referendum and with draw. However that will not happen as there is more to be gained than lost. Therefore your comments I feel are wrong.

Eau Rouge

Wallace1492 wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

If it got so bad, we could simply have a referendum and with draw.

If got that bad we wouldn't need to withdraw, half of Europe would have already left long ago and it would all have fallen apart. The UK is not the most Euro-sceptic country involved.

Christophe3967

Wallace1492 wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

No, we can vote a new one in. We are still in charge of our own destiny as a country. However I have no problems with being part of a Greater Europe, there are huge advantages to us all in this. Of course there are a lot of things to sort out, and there will be plenty of people that oppose certain things, but it is there for the greater good of us all.
If it got so bad, we could simply have a referendum and with draw. However that will not happen as there is more to be gained than lost. Therefore your comments I feel are wrong.

I sincerely hope you're right - we've clearly interpreted the Lisbon Treaty very differently. My earlier comments were tongue in cheek, but if we live in a democracy, why didn't we have a vote on this? We were promised one by all the main parties. But instead we haven't even had a debate. At least the Irish got a vote, even if they didn't get the answer right first time. Stupid Irish people :roll: .

What are the huge advantages btw?

Wallace1492

Christophe3967 wrote:

I sincerely hope you're right - we've clearly interpreted the Lisbon Treaty very differently. My earlier comments were tongue in cheek, but if we live in a democracy, why didn't we have a vote on this? We were promised one by all the main parties. But instead we haven't even had a debate. At least the Irish got a vote, even if they didn't get the answer right first time. Stupid Irish people :roll: .

What are the huge advantages btw?

LOL. Not even going to rise to that one.....

Anyway has this not slighty gone off topic...... :shock:

Eau Rouge

Christophe3967 wrote:

but if we live in a democracy, why didn't we have a vote on this?

Parliament rules supreme and unchallenged. The people do not have a say in individual issues regardless of their importance as Parliament rules supreme. If you want referendums, you're going to need a written constitution that Parliament has to abide by and can't alter. That would be a far bigger change in how the UK is run than anything coming from the EU.

Then you'll only run into the exact same problem that dogged the French and Irish votes on this matter. Nobody ever debates the Treaty itself. At best the campaign is full of half-truths, lies and scaremongering, at worst it decends to a protest vote against the government over some domestic issues.
Anyway, voting for things is dangerous. It gives them power.

always_tyred

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Wallace, you're quite right about corrupt governments - that's really what I meant.

However I fear you're being a trifle optimistic about being able vote a new lot in. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, we are governed by Brussels, and whatever happens in May, or whenever, is largely irrelevant. We'll be voting for a 'government' with all the might and authority of a parish council. :roll:

No, we can vote a new one in. We are still in charge of our own destiny as a country. However I have no problems with being part of a Greater Europe, there are huge advantages to us all in this. Of course there are a lot of things to sort out, and there will be plenty of people that oppose certain things, but it is there for the greater good of us all.
If it got so bad, we could simply have a referendum and with draw. However that will not happen as there is more to be gained than lost. Therefore your comments I feel are wrong.

I sincerely hope you're right - we've clearly interpreted the Lisbon Treaty very differently. My earlier comments were tongue in cheek, but if we live in a democracy, why didn't we have a vote on this? We were promised one by all the main parties. But instead we haven't even had a debate. At least the Irish got a vote, even if they didn't get the answer right first time. Stupid Irish people :roll: .

What are the huge advantages btw?

No, we were promised a referrendum on a new EU constitution.

the argument goes that the Lisbon Treaty does not consitute a constitution.

Eau Rouge

Christophe3967 wrote:

What are the huge advantages btw?

It's mostly procedural "Club Rules" stuff.
What is know as the EU today began as the European Coal and Steel Community with the Treaty of Paris, then later the EEC with the Treaty of Rome. Since then there have been lots of other treaties, directives, rules, procedures etc etc, as you would expect from any governmental organisation that's nearly 60 years old.
This is fine for Italy or Germany or France who have been in since the beginning, and so have adopted the various regulations as they came along. New member countries were finding it increasingly harder to go back over everything that had been agreed before and re-work their systems to cope with all the regulations that meant. One treaty would introduce something, another would later remove it, etc etc. It was also having an understandable effect on the ongoing operations of the whole thing as countries bicker over which clause in which treaty they are supposed to be following.
One of the key points og the Lisbon Treaty was to get rid of that by starting from fresh. It was supposed to supercede all the other treaties and be the one starting point. This is why the mad federalist Frenchman pensioned off to oversee it's writting dubbed it a "Constitution" when it is, and never was, any such thing.

It's other main aim is closley related. The EU has expanded. What works for a club of 5 or 7 or 12 counteis was already proving difficult with 15 voices around the table, let alone 27 and more trying to join. The original idea for Lisbon would have streamlined this a lot more, but this has been significantly watered down in the actual Treaty. It leaves things less effecient but keeps governments happy. Qualified Majority has made it in though. QM is what most people mean when they talk about "shifting power to Brussells". It's controversial, but it's not the scary monster that pretends to be it in anti-EU rhetoric.

It gets rid of the silly revolving-presidency system where the EU's running was passed around from country to country every 6 months (I knew someone working on putting a telecoms system back into Croatia for the EU, every 6 months his bosses changed and the whole way the team worked was radically altered!) You get a more permanent chairman and merge the two pre-existing foreign offices into a single body. People think this chairman will have scary powers. He won't, he's not elected by the people, unlike everyone else in the room. That mandate will always top his. Any power he has will not come from his office.

There are more in-depth changes if you want to discuss them. I'll now turn the question back. What's actually a problem in the actual Treaty that would make you vote against it?

Christophe3967

Eau Rouge wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

I'll now turn the question back. What's actually a problem in the actual Treaty that would make you vote against it?

Apart from this nagging concern that it might be a teeny bit undemocratic, unaccountable, wasteful, and corrupt, really I think its fine. Honest. Clearly the €600bn we spend on red tape each year is good value, and I like the fact that I’m not forced to eat the wrong size strawberries. I don’t mind that all the key legislative decisions are taken in secret by unelected commissioners (after all Neil Kinnock’s a national treasure). Why would we want to worry ourselves with all that tiresome scrutiny stuff? How would anything ever get done? And consensus decision making is just so last year, darling. Article 48? Pah! Article 9? Nothing to see here, move along. Protocol 6? Don't give me that one - look at our lovely Protocol 9! Article 46? You must be barking, guv. So come on Citizens, Ode to Joy!

Eau Rouge

Christophe3967 wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

I'll now turn the question back. What's actually a problem in the actual Treaty that would make you vote against it?

Apart from this nagging concern that it might be a teeny bit undemocratic, unaccountable, wasteful, and corrupt, really I think its fine. Honest. Clearly the €600bn we spend on red tape each year is good value, and I like the fact that I’m not forced to eat the wrong size strawberries. I don’t mind that all the key legislative decisions are taken in secret by unelected commissioners (after all Neil Kinnock’s a national treasure). Why would we want to worry ourselves with all that tiresome scrutiny stuff? How would anything ever get done? And consensus decision making is just so last year, darling. Article 48? Pah! Article 9? Nothing to see here, move along. Protocol 6? Don't give me that one - look at our lovely Protocol 9! Article 46? You must be barking, guv. So come on Citizens, Ode to Joy!

The commission has to be unelected. That's the only way to stop it having a mandate, and keeping it as what it is, a civil service. The elected people, the governments of Europe, they have the public mandate, they hold all the power. If you start electing commissioners, then they start having mandates and the power and you get the federal superstate nobody (other than few dithering french) want.
Unaccountable? It's overseen by the governments of Europe internally and the various global bodies it deals with externally.
You don't think the UK should start electing Permanent Secretaries in Whitehall or worry that they aren't "accountable" do you?
Corrupt and wasteful. Of course it is, it's a large institution. They all are, public, private, charity, no matter, they all are.

Commissioners don't take any legislative decisions. I don't know where you got that idea from. The decisions are all taken by the relevant ministers of the 27 member states.
What they decide then has to be enacted into national law. Yes, the meetings of the ministers were held in secret (ala their UK equivalent, when Ministers meet their staff, and cabinet meetings too) but the original version of Lisbon would actually have changed that and published at least some details, including how the voting went. I don't know if it's still there.

Article 48: The prime ministers of the member states can alter this treaty. You think that's a big deal when they could just replace it with the Treaty of Wherever anyway? I don't see the issue, other than perhaps avoiding yet another Irish referendum.

You'll have to help me with Article 9. OK, it gives a bit too much legitimacy to the Parliament, but what exactly is the problem supposed to be?

I can't even find a reference to a "protocol 6" or "protocol 9"

I agree that 46 is interesting. You're still looking at the 27 governments agreeing to something before it becomes "EU law" though. It's a whole lot less scary an article when you remember that the commission and Commissioners do not have any power. Does it mean all that much in practise? The UK is already out of Schengen, it's not like anything else in 46 would therefore be an issue. I might prefer if it wasn't there, but I won't lose sleep that it is.

What £600bn? The EU's total annual budget is "only" about £130bn, not all of which is spent on red tape. Germany pays a good deal more than it's share of that too.

2 to 1 odds the strawberries rules will have come from the strawberry producers of Europe, and be a least-common-denominator of their own quality control rules anyway, thus making selling strawberries around the EU much easier. If it's not, then it will be the supermarkets. It's won't be from boredom.

Personally, I'll take the EU over a supreme, unchallengeable, first-past-the-post elected Parliament with a hereditary figurehead any day of the week. Vive La Republique!

Beeblebrox

Yeah the EU's all right. Most complaints I've heard directed at it at usually debunked with a modicum of research and due diligence or is old fashioned xenophobia.

And I've got Euro-sceptic in my blood... I'm a farmer!