racism

[kibsolar1999]

do you know what "sucks"? that nearly every statistic, every quote and "fact" you give us here has to be double checked.
self declared scientistss, self made statistics.. the lot..

i found that..
Here's a quote from 3 April 1952: "The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State."

The quote ...is often misascribed to Jean Monnet. In fact.. it is a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."


and, your other quote was incomplete..

In 1943, Monnet became a member of the French Committee of National Liberation, the de facto French government in exile in Algiers. It was at this time that he first became explicit about his vision for a union of Europe to regain and retain peace. During a meeting of this committee on 5 August 1943, Monnet declared:
“There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation...”

that was in the middle of the war... and, pls note... "...too small..." important, eh?
(but for a future like singapure the UK is too BIG).

[erol]

I've lost track of where this thread stopped being "racism" Can someone explain please? A Mod or otherwise, I'm not fussy.

I am going to thank you Sophie for this post as well as it has also triggered a new understanding in me , to do with the consistency of lack of it in applying the off topic rule.

That new understanding is that if you say the 'off topic decision' in the rule is always in the eyes of the person who started the thread, exclusively, then all problems of applying the rule in terms of consistency disappear entirely. If the thread starter thinks a thread is going off topic, then they and only they, tell a mod they think it has gone off topic from post x. The mod, then, if and when they have time, will respond by splitting that thread at the post x. If the thread starter thinks that the topic of the thread has reached a conclusion, then they inform the mods of this and as and when the mods can they close the thread for any more posts in that thread.

Whilst my previous 'understanding' did recognise some 'priority' of the thread starter re the decision 'is this off topic', it did not recognise the exclusively of this. That is if you say that the thread starter and only the thread starter can make such a decisions as 'is a given post off topic' and 'has the original topic reached a conclusion' then all problems of inconsistency of application of the rule just disappear like mist evaporating. This does not mean of course that a mod or Soner can not close a thread that is 'getting out of hand' and for that reason. What it does mean is they can not and indeed have no need to decide if a given thread is or is not taking things 'off topic' or not. Ever. That is done exclusively by the topic starter.

Having come to this new understanding above that has in turn also led me to another new understanding.

When in the past there have been complaints about the consistency of applying the 'off topic' rule my reaction has been in effect to try and shut down such discussions. This I did on the basis of an assumption that 'this is the best way these things can be done'. The new understanding I now have about all this shows me that assumption was wrong. There is, I now think, a better was this stuff can be done. What is more if my attempts to shut down such discussions , based on that false assumption, had of been successful, I would never have been able to have found my way to the new understanding on how the off topic rule could be applied (better). My attempts to shut down these discussions in the past, should, at the very least, have been worded 'unless you have a different and possibly better way of dealing with the problem then please let's not keep pointing the problem out, over and over.'


PS I do not know if any of this posts makes any sense to anyone else. It makes sense to me. If anyone is reading it and thinks it does make sense to them, even if only partially, I would really appreciate it if they could let me know (via pm in they want)

[EnjoyingTheSun]

do you know what "sucks"? that nearly every statistic, every quote and "fact" you give us here has to be double checked.
self declared scientistss, self made statistics.. the lot..

OK one more quote for the set? Just the really tricky one to explain away.

"Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

And please tell me what other steps need to be put into place on this long path away from the trading block?. The EU army was another big tick I'm struggling to think of a reason a trading block that needs it's own army.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

do you know what "sucks"? that nearly every statistic, every quote and "fact" you give us here has to be double checked.
self declared scientistss, self made statistics.. the lot..

Few more paranoid quotes for you to double check;

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and diguised”
(Valery Giscard D’Estang. on the Lisbon treaty)

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)

‘If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)

“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)

“When the going gets tough, you have to lie.”
“I am for secret, dark debates.”
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)

“The European Union is a state under construction.”
(Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs)

“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,”
(French PM Raymond Barre)

“Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected.”
(Valéry Giscard d’Estaing)

“The ‘no’ votes were a demand for more Europe, not less.”
(Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission)

“It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)

“The day of the nation state is over.”
(Roman Herzog, German president, 1996)

“The [EU] Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.”
(Jean-Claude Trichet, current head of the European Central Bank)

“One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement toward union of the European states”
(Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the EU Constitution 1997)

“The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe”
(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)

[sophie]

To hell with Brexit, if you listen very carefully or better still read, the words to Blue Mink and Melting Pot (who BTW I loved) , in the UK you wouldn't be able to refer nowadays to some people as they are labeled in the song. Regardless of the belief behind the the song. Sad but true.

[erol]

Thanks all. I am off to try and write a book. bbl

[pipie]

Having lived in Esentepe,UAE and South Africa I can tell you now,white people are not the most racist,I’ve lived through it.The most racist people I have encountered are actually Indians,when you understand their caste system it makes you wonder why they were actually invited to the UK.

[Groucho]

I've lost track of where this thread stopped being "racism" Can someone explain please? A Mod or otherwise, I'm not fussy.

I am going to thank you Sophie for this post as well as it has also triggered a new understanding in me , to do with the consistency of lack of it in applying the off topic rule.

That new understanding is that if you say the 'off topic decision' in the rule is always in the eyes of the person who started the thread, exclusively, then all problems of applying the rule in terms of consistency disappear entirely. If the thread starter thinks a thread is going off topic, then they and only they, tell a mod they think it has gone off topic from post x. The mod, then, if and when they have time, will respond by splitting that thread at the post x. If the thread starter thinks that the topic of the thread has reached a conclusion, then they inform the mods of this and as and when the mods can they close the thread for any more posts in that thread.

Whilst my previous 'understanding' did recognise some 'priority' of the thread starter re the decision 'is this off topic', it did not recognise the exclusively of this. That is if you say that the thread starter and only the thread starter can make such a decisions as 'is a given post off topic' and 'has the original topic reached a conclusion' then all problems of inconsistency of application of the rule just disappear like mist evaporating. This does not mean of course that a mod or Soner can not close a thread that is 'getting out of hand' and for that reason. What it does mean is they can not and indeed have no need to decide if a given thread is or is not taking things 'off topic' or not. Ever. That is done exclusively by the topic starter.

Having come to this new understanding above that has in turn also led me to another new understanding.

When in the past there have been complaints about the consistency of applying the 'off topic' rule my reaction has been in effect to try and shut down such discussions. This I did on the basis of an assumption that 'this is the best way these things can be done'. The new understanding I now have about all this shows me that assumption was wrong. There is, I now think, a better was this stuff can be done. What is more if my attempts to shut down such discussions , based on that false assumption, had of been successful, I would never have been able to have found my way to the new understanding on how the off topic rule could be applied (better). My attempts to shut down these discussions in the past, should, at the very least, have been worded 'unless you have a different and possibly better way of dealing with the problem then please let's not keep pointing the problem out, over and over.'


PS I do not know if any of this posts makes any sense to anyone else. It makes sense to me. If anyone is reading it and thinks it does make sense to them, even if only partially, I would really appreciate it if they could let me know (via pm in they want)

In what way has the thread gone off-topic? Given that your first para starts "My mother voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. I voted to remain. " and the title of the thread is racism, how has the ongoing discussion fallen outside this?