More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?

[Outrider]

That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that.

No, the plan was to centralise the political and financial influence to counter the superpowers of the Soviet Union and the US.

So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.

No, there hasn't been any significant closening of the ties since the mid 1990s - there's been an expansion of which countries were included, and that's expanded the influence of the Eurozone, but that's not the same thing as the EU.

The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation.

Except that wars and conflicts are killing fewer and fewer people, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population.

TTIP highlights this now that the people at the top of the EU are playing to the US tune, almost. It may look fine on the surface but below this our rights have been hollowed out.

TTIP - as I've posted elsewhere here - is a problem, but not because it's creating more centralised power, quite the opposite. The problem with TTIP is that it's abandoning the power to restrain large corporations, it's a race not for harmonised regulations but to harmonise deregulation.

It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.

And once upon a time those elites were absolute monarchs and religious instutions who were accountable to no-one, even nominally. Now those elites are politicians and corporations who are accountable to their electorates and shareholders. Those may not wield their power strongly enough - particular the shareholders - but the option and the capacity is there.

But as I said it is backed by the politicians. It is the people who are resisting not the politicians at the top. Also, you seem to be back tracking because if things are pretty good as you say why are their groups now pushing back on what you say is a relatively better situation today?

Things are pretty good, but a) they aren't perfect, and b) they're starting to go the wrong way. That's why people are pushing back.

All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.

Whatever system is put in place is susceptible to human greed, unless you can somehow rid humanity of their greed. You keep referring to the Soviet Union as a bugbear - they had a system that 'eradicated' human greed, look how that turned out.

You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling.

And we see the Labour party suddenly electing a genuine left-winger, we see the Canadians throwing out their 'regulation-light' ten-year incumbent... Politicians might think that corporate money will buy them seats, but it only buys them advertising, and people are learning to smell the bullshit.

Remember, the Nazis put in a lot of infrastructure and look how well that went....

So did the UK, the US, Russia and Japan - infrastructure gives you options, it doesn't determine what you do with them.

O.

[Jack Knave]

That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that.

No, the plan was to centralise the political and financial influence to counter the superpowers of the Soviet Union and the US.

That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan. You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.

So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.

No, there hasn't been any significant closening of the ties since the mid 1990s - there's been an expansion of which countries were included, and that's expanded the influence of the Eurozone, but that's not the same thing as the EU.

I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one. Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration. And I don't know what your point is with suddenly commenting on the Eurozone when it wasn't on the table as a separate issue to reference.

The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation.

Except that wars and conflicts are killing fewer and fewer people, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population.

Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc. The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences. The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.

It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.

And once upon a time those elites were absolute monarchs and religious instutions who were accountable to no-one, even nominally. Now those elites are politicians and corporations who are accountable to their electorates and shareholders. Those may not wield their power strongly enough - particular the shareholders - but the option and the capacity is there.

This is pretty much besides the point. The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%. As for the electorates most are being hoodwinked (though this is starting to change) which is my point that of the undercurrents going on in the world, where the true power lies. You go to N. Korea and everything will look good and dandy but that proves nothing. You're going on, AND ON, about how the set-up of our political system etc. is right but looks can deceive.

All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.

Whatever system is put in place is susceptible to human greed, unless you can somehow rid humanity of their greed. You keep referring to the Soviet Union as a bugbear - they had a system that 'eradicated' human greed, look how that turned out.

That comment is laughable. If greed had been bred out of them how come when it fell people grabbed the assets and became billionaires? In fact murdered to acquire them.

You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling.

And we see the Labour party suddenly electing a genuine left-winger, we see the Canadians throwing out their 'regulation-light' ten-year incumbent... Politicians might think that corporate money will buy them seats, but it only buys them advertising, and people are learning to smell the bullshit.

But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.

[Outrider]

That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan.

Except that Brussels doesn't have a 'one track mind', it has a mind influenced by those 'silly little whimisical needs' that people keep voting for. You keep trying to pitch this as some sort of stealth takeover, but the bureaucracy at Brussells - which, I freely accept, is considerable - serves the European Parliament, which is elected. The European Commission is not but - much like we're seeing with the House of Lords at the moment - they know better than to stray too far from the pitch of the electorate for fear of the constitutional trouble it will bring.

You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.

Rather ironic when you consider that the breakdown of the UK MEPs is more representative of the voting patterns in the country than the UK parliament is, but don't let that reality stop you.

I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one.

Yet you said 'every generation' and I pointed out that the entirety of the last generation has seen no significant consolidation.

Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration.

My point was that the EU has taken up the plan of expansion in recent times rather than consolidation.

And I don't know what your point is with suddenly commenting on the Eurozone when it wasn't on the table as a separate issue to reference.

Just heading off a possible confusion - many people conflate the two.

Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc.

So how come this can be a short-term view (still an erroneous one) but the view of the EU's political status has to be long-term?

The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences.

Yes, they are, which means that by and large fewer people are actively serving in the military involved - whether you pitch it as 'conflicts' or 'wars', occupation or resistance movements, whether you count it in terms of money spent or munitions fired, the fact is that fewer people are dying in these conflicts, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the world population. By any measure that's an improving situation, surely?

The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.

You think the modern nutters are more rabid than, what? Mao's red army? Japan's Unit 731? The SS? The Crusaders? I'd say, on balance, they're probably just as deranged, dehumanising and sick as each other.

This is pretty much besides the point.

No, it absolutely isn't, and that's where so many people fall down. People think that these mechanisms aren't there, or don't work, and allow themselves to be restricted by not appreciating the choices they have. Democracy gives power to people, but only if they have the courage to stand up and use it - but they give in to fear and their own stupidity and vote to elect the status quo, to follow the media lead and think that life is all about the economics of government.

People see shareholding as something that funds their pension but forget that it's something that gives them a hold over the executives that fleece them.

The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%.

Some of them. Most of them are pension funds, and divested investment portfolios on behalf of banks and building societies - places we have influence over.

As for the electorates most are being hoodwinked (though this is starting to change) which is my point that of the undercurrents going on in the world, where the true power lies. You go to N. Korea and everything will look good and dandy but that proves nothing. You're going on, AND ON, about how the set-up of our political system etc. is right but looks can deceive.

Yes, looks can deceive, because people don't look properly. People have the Sun read to them or scan the Daily Mail and vote for the lions because they're told that the only other option is the pretend lion of Labour who'd be in hock to rabid 'Jocknationalists', when the reality is there's a wealth of other options if people would only go looking for them rather than just accepting what the media feed them - there's a reason those capital owners that you are, rightly, wary of are buying media time and media outlets, why they are pushing for regulation and commercialisation of the internet.

That comment is laughable. If greed had been bred out of them how come when it fell people grabbed the assets and became billionaires? In fact murdered to acquire them.

That was my point - if you try to eradicate or control greed you will fail, it's intrinsic to humanity.

But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.

We'll find out. Finance, in the current system, is influence not power - genuine power, the power to effect laws, the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, lies with the people and their representatives. All we need is for the people to actually learn enough to exert that power - why do think the media are so constantly critical of the standard of education? Disrupt education, disrupt the people's ability to recognise what's actually best for them. Yes there are nefarious tendencies amongst the rich to remain amongst the rich, but their successes at the moment - certainly in Europe - aren't through the direct funding of politicians, but through the control of the information that's pumped out to the masses.

O.

[Sassy]

Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate.

NO!

Too Difficult for you to relate to with the Old names...

Sass

Religion has really screwed you up, hasn't it.

In what way? You see what you might think is 'screwed up' could be something completely different to what others determined as screwed up. So in relation to the topic what is your deliberation of the use of that term?

I can tell you what how I have been saved from dark times in my life but nothing has screwed me up. But I think the world is in danger whether relgious or not from anti-social attitudes which attack..(like you own ideas) when accusing someone of being screwed up.
That type of transference tears down it does not build and I suppose that is why the disciples wrote for those still being fed milk the following teaching..." Greater is he who in thee than he who is in the world." We overcome not become screwed up.

Do you really think that there is anything in the Book of Daniel that has any relevence?
You have already shown us (in the thread on giving accommodation to refugees ) that you haven't a clue about the central message of Christianity, so why on earth do you think that we shoul take notice of even older fairy tales?

Should that be  'that we should take notice' etc

God seemed to think the book of Daniel relevant.

Even Christ, himself spoke about Daniel being a Prophet and to see and understand.

King James Bible
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

So clearly Christ himself has already give you your answer as to any relevance.

Then the personal attack...


The central message of Christianity is John 3:16
King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So saved because we believe what God has said about his Son Jesus Christ.

So the central message is about LOVE and being forgiven through faith.

As for refugees we have our soldiers on the street and our own people on the street.
If you brother was on the street and they offered a refugee a home before him then don't tell me you would be happy.

So really you need to understand that we are NOT Jesus Christ and cannot make one house into two house. Not make one pound divide into two pounds.

We would be better giving them help to remain in their own country. Why not go over there and live and give them your house and you live there where they come from.
See, reality is for all your spouting you would not trade places. But you want us to do the impossible in a country whose own soldiers who have served in combat have ended up homeless to leave them on the street for refugees.

REALITY is a wonderful thing it makes you see that if you can't take of your own then your love and charity abroad is ALL FAKE....
Our Country is not have the peoples interests served. It is serving the interest of the government and relations between other countries.

Not a good thing for any country. When God put King Solomon on the throne he served his people in his nation and it in turn prospered all.

[Outrider]

God seemed to think the book of Daniel relevant.

Even Christ, himself spoke about Daniel being a Prophet and to see and understand.

You have to appreciate though, Sass, if we accepted that the words of the Old and New Testament accurately reflected the opinion of an actual God and its avatar, we wouldn't be questioning whether Daniel was relevant.

The central message of Christianity is John 3:16
King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So saved because we believe what God has said about his Son Jesus Christ.

So the central message is about LOVE and being forgiven through faith.

It's yet to be established that we've done anything wrong that needs forgiving, though.

As for refugees we have our soldiers on the street and our own people on the street. If you brother was on the street and they offered a refugee a home before him then don't tell me you would be happy.

Why is my brother more worthy than a refugee? Aren't they both people, trying to do their best? That's what bugs me about people in rich western countries complaining about 'foreigners' coming and stealing 'our jobs' and taking 'our benefits' - we're all people. We've been fortunate to be born in a nation with free health care, with employment rights, with a social security system, with relative domestic peace and stability. It's not enough to say 'these people aren't in immediate danger in Lebanon, let them stay there in this piss-hole, prospectless, destitute nomad camp' rather than share what we have. What makes us special? Why do we deserve this and they don't?

So really you need to understand that we are NOT Jesus Christ and cannot make one house into two house. Not make one pound divide into two pounds.

No, what we are is a nation with billions telling people with nothing that they can have crumbs, but they shouldn't dare come around asking for actual pieces of bread.

We would be better giving them help to remain in their own country. Why not go over there and live and give them your house and you live there where they come from.

Their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in the infrastructure and temperate climate that makes Western Europe so easy to live in. Before we tell them they should stay in their country we should be exporting an infrastructure for them to live within - roads, rail, sewage, domestic water, gas and electricity, a banking system, political and economic stability. It's not use saying 'stay there, it's safe now' when the lack of resources and the radical religious and political retardism will mean that conflict is only a minor weather incident away.

See, reality is for all your spouting you would not trade places. But you want us to do the impossible in a country whose own soldiers who have served in combat have ended up homeless to leave them on the street for refugees.

It's not impossible. People are spending hundreds of millions of pounds a season to acquire the contract rights for footballers. People across the 'civilised' world are collectively shelling out billions to watch films - I like a good film, but that's preposterous money when we're quibling about whether to spend millions on border controls or refugee camps as a better means of ensuring that other people won't be in a position to watch those films with us.

O.

[Outrider]

And that applies equally about the wretched starving children of Africa, who don't seem to have a strong voice to stand up for them.  Their living conditions are infinitely worse than the migrant camps. 

Of course, nobody deserves to live like that; but once it was less than a bed of roses here, but we worked to make our country what it is now, for what it's worth.

Elsewhere on the boards, BA added this comment. I'd agree that that it applies to the starving sub-Saharan Africans as much as to anyone else, yes.

What I'd disagree with, though, is that 'we worked to make our country what it is now'. I work, certainly, and I contribute, but this country already had all those advantages when I was born, and why my parents were born, and for some considerable time before that.

Arguably you could go back as far as you like and point out that people living in the relatively fertile Western Europe had a societal advantage through that accident of birth simply because they could free up more resources given that subsistence was easier. Then, when the industrial revolution came, people with easy access to raw materials benefited from the accident of the location of their birth.

We're the beneficiaries not just of our own work, but of the good fortune to be born in an area where so much had already been done by other people, and we dismiss this with a sense of entitlement that says these scared, hungry, prospectless people should stay where they are because this good fortune is ours.

O.

[Rhiannon]

We do it to our own, too. As a nation we are no better at reaching out to those less fortunate in the streets next to ours - if anything we are better at donating abroad because we feel that those who suffer here should just sort themselves out.

[Jack Knave]

That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan.

Except that Brussels doesn't have a 'one track mind', it has a mind influenced by those 'silly little whimisical needs' that people keep voting for. You keep trying to pitch this as some sort of stealth takeover, but the bureaucracy at Brussells - which, I freely accept, is considerable - serves the European Parliament, which is elected. The European Commission is not but - much like we're seeing with the House of Lords at the moment - they know better than to stray too far from the pitch of the electorate for fear of the constitutional trouble it will bring.

It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties. The European parliament has no legislative powers whatsoever. It is just a puppet assembly to give the impression of democracy to try to fool the people. As for the Commission not straying too far from the people just look at the out of touch and crass comments they have come out with over the years.

You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.

Rather ironic when you consider that the breakdown of the UK MEPs is more representative of the voting patterns in the country than the UK parliament is, but don't let that reality stop you.

If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.

I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one.

Yet you said 'every generation' and I pointed out that the entirety of the last generation has seen no significant consolidation.

So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?

Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration.

My point was that the EU has taken up the plan of expansion in recent times rather than consolidation.

Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.

Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc.

So how come this can be a short-term view (still an erroneous one) but the view of the EU's political status has to be long-term?

Post WWII isn't really that long which is why the stealth plan of the EU and corporatists won't work. Many older generations have seen how things have changed for the worsts or how life today is going the wrong way. The OP was not just about possible more conflicts etc. but the intensity, fanaticism or madness of the perpetrators.

The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences.

Yes, they are, which means that by and large fewer people are actively serving in the military involved - whether you pitch it as 'conflicts' or 'wars', occupation or resistance movements, whether you count it in terms of money spent or munitions fired, the fact is that fewer people are dying in these conflicts, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the world population. By any measure that's an improving situation, surely?

I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.

The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.

You think the modern nutters are more rabid than, what? Mao's red army? Japan's Unit 731? The SS? The Crusaders? I'd say, on balance, they're probably just as deranged, dehumanising and sick as each other.

I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was. The OP was also meant to be in reference to a general global threat or overall perceived shift worldwide. May be after the Cold War there was a feeling of things getting safer and optimism and it seems to me that things are being stirred up in a different to similar peaks we have seen in the past with say WWII and the like....? 

This is pretty much besides the point.

No, it absolutely isn't, and that's where so many people fall down. People think that these mechanisms aren't there, or don't work, and allow themselves to be restricted by not appreciating the choices they have. Democracy gives power to people, but only if they have the courage to stand up and use it - but they give in to fear and their own stupidity and vote to elect the status quo, to follow the media lead and think that life is all about the economics of government.

People see shareholding as something that funds their pension but forget that it's something that gives them a hold over the executives that fleece them.

But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now. As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.

The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%.

Some of them. Most of them are pension funds, and divested investment portfolios on behalf of banks and building societies - places we have influence over.

The pension funds are like bulls with rings in their noses, they are led around like idiots because all the financial power is in the banking system and banks not with those investing their money where they are being ripped off as gullible fools.

But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.

We'll find out. Finance, in the current system, is influence not power - genuine power, the power to effect laws, the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, lies with the people and their representatives. All we need is for the people to actually learn enough to exert that power - why do think the media are so constantly critical of the standard of education? Disrupt education, disrupt the people's ability to recognise what's actually best for them. Yes there are nefarious tendencies amongst the rich to remain amongst the rich, but their successes at the moment - certainly in Europe - aren't through the direct funding of politicians, but through the control of the information that's pumped out to the masses.

Finance is power because it buys the politicians off so they make the laws the financial elites want. How many of the politicians who you consider to be in a minority, non-mainstream position could resist such monetary 'gifts'? And for them to do what you say we need 300 odd of them in our parliament to pass laws that will start to reverse the way things are going. But I do agree most voters are idiots.

[Outrider]

It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties.

And the national parliaments that decide whether or not they will accept those treaties. And the European Parliament that then votes on the specific measures that will be enforced because of those treaties.

As for the Commission not straying too far from the people just look at the out of touch and crass comments they have come out with over the years.

Which are pretty much the same as the out-of-touch and crass comments that national and regional elected officials in various countries come out with.

If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.

So the fact that the British membership of the European Parliament is more representative of the electorate in this country than Parliament is, to you, is not evidence that there's no democratic shortfall in Europe?

So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?

No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.

Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.

In recent years times the European Union hasn't been attempting greater centralisation, hasn't been attempting to harmonise any further, but has instead increased its effectiveness by expanding to new territories rather than homogenising the ones it already has. I really can't see what's so difficult to grasp about that.

Post WWII isn't really that long which is why the stealth plan of the EU and corporatists won't work.

If we're talking about the EU then 'post-WWII' is the entirety of the EU - by definition that's not 'recently' in the context of the history of the EU.

Many older generations have seen how things have changed for the worsts or how life today is going the wrong way.

In their opinion, perhaps, but many older people have seen how much things have changed for the better, and many more older people have the option of having an opinion because so many fewer of them have been killed by malnutrition, disease and warfare.

The OP was not just about possible more conflicts etc. but the intensity, fanaticism or madness of the perpetrators.

And I pointed out that I don't see any more fanatacism in current fanatics than in previous fanatics.

I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.

Infant mortality has halved in the last few decades. Several pandemic killers have been virtually eliminated, and medical treatments continue to extend average lifespan across the world. The number of people in subsistence living conditions is decreasing, quality and duration of life, on average, are up, education is more widely available than it has ever been, in addition to fewer people dying in conflicts. Things are on the up - it's far from perfect, and there are worrying trends in there, not least of which is the increasing gulf between the extremely rich and the rest, that economic inequality, both in terms of individual people and in terms of national economies.

I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was.

That 'isolated country' is the world's largest exporter and home to a sixth of the world's population. Mao was 'post WWII' and earlier on 'post WWII' was considered recent by you.

The OP was also meant to be in reference to a general global threat or overall perceived shift worldwide. May be after the Cold War there was a feeling of things getting safer and optimism and it seems to me that things are being stirred up in a different to similar peaks we have seen in the past with say WWII and the like....?

There is a perception, particularly with Russia's increased territoriality and willingness to exert military authority, that a new cold war is coming, but we're far from the heady days of the Bay of Pigs, or the diplomatic empasse of the late 70s - that's not a guarantee that we won't head that way, of course, but we're nowhere near it yet.

But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now.

Which isn't the fault of the mechanism, which can move the kings and queens, but the players who don't choose to.

As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.

The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.

The pension funds are like bulls with rings in their noses, they are led around like idiots because all the financial power is in the banking system and banks not with those investing their money where they are being ripped off as gullible fools.

Because the stakeholders in those pension schemes get their annual letter about voting at the AGM and ignore it - the bankers don't.

Finance is power because it buys the politicians off so they make the laws the financial elites want.

Which only works if we accept those politicians in the first place.

But I do agree most voters are idiots.

Some of them, perhaps many. Most? Most of them are disillusioned, because the mass media - which is, by and large, owned and directed by the rich vested interests - tells them that it doesn't really matter, that democracy is a largely failed experiment, that governing is all about ensuring the country is making a profit, regardless of the social costs. People aren't idiots, necessarily, idiots can't think: people are lazy, and either don't or won't think, and people spreading the doom and gloom message of 'it's a done deal, we're all owned by the megacorporations' are just helping that.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.

Outy has already done the heavy lifting in rebutting your various arguments, but on this one specifically its worth noting that your OP is titled, "More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?". Of course the example you give are awful, but not in "World" terms. To the contrary, for most people in most places most of the trends have been good for several decades now - life expectancy, literacy, disease elimination etc have all gone in the right direction and show every sign of continuing to do so.

The danger here is in conflating "what the news media pays most attention to" with "the World". By definition, "news" is  what's new, different, unusual whereas the remarkable positive changes that affect by magnitudes more people than those you list are almost unreported. Imagine for example that 99% of the global population had been displaced but the populations of a few, fairly small countries had not been then the headlines would be, "300,000 in country X have not been displaced", which would also tell you very little about the World as a whole.   

[BashfulAnthony]

Since the EU has been mentioned, this latest Poll is interesting:

 LONDON (Reuters) -" British support for staying in the European Union has tumbled over the past four months as an influx of migrants into Europe has pushed many voters towards opting for an exit, the Ipsos MORI pollster said on Thursday.
Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to renegotiate relations with the bloc it joined in 1973 ahead of a referendum on membership by the end of 2017.
In one of the starkest illustrations to date of how the migrant crisis may be polarising British views of Europe, an Ipsos MORI poll showed 52 percent of Britons would vote to stay in the EU, down from a record 61 percent in June."

[Nearly Sane]

I think reading the runes here is a bit harder than that. The refugee crisis has been ongoing and in the middle of it as the passage notes support went up to 61%, a record in recent polling. Note these figures are not excluding don"t knows so it isn't 61v 39 but was 61 v 27. The polls are definitely volatile but most of the recent movement as a trend has been in favour of staying in.

At this stage with not even a date for the referendum and given the volatility, who knows what might happen but the odds of about2/1 pm staying in seem about right to me.

[BashfulAnthony]

I think reading the runes here is a bit harder than that. The refugee crisis has been ongoing and in the middle of it as the passage notes support went up to 61%, a record in recent polling. Note these figures are not excluding don"t knows so it isn't 61v 39 but was 61 v 27. The polls are definitely volatile but most of the recent movement as a trend has been in favour of staying in.

At this stage with not even a date for the referendum and given the volatility, who knows what might happen but the odds of about2/1 pm staying in seem about right to me.

I think when Cameron fails in his re-negotiatios, as he surely will, and though he will try to put a positive spin on it, then that, with the almost certain continuation of the migrant crisis, might well see the figures change dramatically.

[Nearly Sane]

Which doesn't really cover why there was the recent peak in staying in. As for the negotitaions, whether by cunning or stupidity, Cameron has managed to never make clear any objectives. In one sense, this could be advantageous in that it is difficult to be clear of success or failure, but the dangerous aspect is given it is difficult to claim success, it may make it easier for disaffected Tories to campaign against staying in.If there is a strong enough rebellion in the senior parts of govt, then one might see the pendulum spinning back to Out.


Unlike with the Scottish referendum where at this stage poll movements were small and the No side had always held a substantial lead, this is much harder to read.

[BashfulAnthony]

NS, you say the polls are volatile, and this one, from The Mail Online, in September, is different:
"
A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.
If a referendum were to be held tomorrow on whether to remain a member of the EU, 51 per cent of British people would vote ‘No’.
It follows a string of polls over recent years which have given comfortable leads to the pro-European camp. Significantly, it is the first measure of public opinion since the Government changed the wording of the referendum question, lending weight to claims that the new phrasing boosts the chances of victory for the ‘Out’ campaign."

[Nearly Sane]

Which then gives you a problem with different polls and different methods. If you throw the survation DM one in then it be argued that in the month  since it was taken there must have been a swing to staying in given the 52 v whatever figure for Out in the poll _ which would negate the entirety of the point in the report from Reuters.

All that the polls seem to reveal at the moment is their volatility though as noted for about a year or so in a number of them there has been a stronger showing for In than in the 3 yrs previously. That there are substantial discrepancies based on the methods makes it even harder to read. One thing to bear was that in the run up to Scottish referendum Survation generally showed a higher Yes vote.


Taking individual polls, or even comparing two polls carried out by the same organisation some months apart, is not much help in attributing any actual causation between specific events and the figures. It's also no guide to the future, except in overall trend analysis of what the effect of events will be.

[BashfulAnthony]

Which then gives you a problem with different polls and different methods. If you throw the survation DM one in then it be argued that in the month  since it was taken there must have been a swing to staying in given the 52 v whatever figure for Out in the poll _ which would negate the entirety of the point in the report from Reuters.

All that the polls seem to reveal at the moment is their volatility though as noted for about a year or so in a number of them there has been a stronger showing for In than in the 3 yrs previously. That there are substantial discrepancies based on the methods makes it even harder to read. One thing to bear was that in the run up to Scottish referendum Survation generally showed a higher Yes vote.


Taking individual polls, or even comparing two polls carried out by the same organisation some months apart, is not much help in attributing any actual causation between specific events and the figures. It's also no guide to the future, except in overall trend analysis of what the effect of events will be.

Agreed.  But the one thing that seems pretty clear is that at the moment the trend is towards "No."  Just hoping that continues.

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't seem clear at all. The trend cannot be taken simply from the two polls that we started with since the first of those was at a point of a record high for In on the back of a four year long trend of generally increasing values for staying In. To take the one result here and declare a trend is incorrect statistically and psephologically.


as to the Survation poll as already highlighted, it uses different method and would have to be looked at in the basis of its trend over a similar length of time. It cannot be used conjunction with the latest poll because again as already pointed out, it would then read as if the trend from Sep to Oct had been in favour of staying in. That would be even further wrong in terms of stats and votes.

Taking two data points and describing it as a trend is simply incorrect in what the term means, particularly given the vicissitudes of polling.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to help please find the poll tracking which I presume based on the Reuters reports we are referring to for the latest poll.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11617702/poll.html

[Jack Knave]

It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties.

And the national parliaments that decide whether or not they will accept those treaties. And the European Parliament that then votes on the specific measures that will be enforced because of those treaties.

Pretty much not. For the most part they are just rubber stampers - a bit like the Lords. Yes they say this and that but it is the treaties that shape things and it is the Commission that takes its cue from them. I know what you are going to respond with about the voters and all that......but the fact is most of the people in Brussels' machinery agree to the stipulations of the Treaties.

If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.

So the fact that the British membership of the European Parliament is more representative of the electorate in this country than Parliament is, to you, is not evidence that there's no democratic shortfall in Europe?

Your answer assumes that the EU parliament has any power is not a joke. The fact is it has little power, though it is trying to get some (way too late now) and it is a joke because of this.

So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?

No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.

What about the Lisbon Treaty!!?

Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.

In recent years times the European Union hasn't been attempting greater centralisation, hasn't been attempting to harmonise any further, but has instead increased its effectiveness by expanding to new territories rather than homogenising the ones it already has. I really can't see what's so difficult to grasp about that.

I can't see the relevance of that to our topic. If others jump aboard the ship to Soviet Union II that doesn't mitigate it. So what is all that rhetoric about ever closer union then?

I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.

Infant mortality has halved in the last few decades. Several pandemic killers have been virtually eliminated, and medical treatments continue to extend average lifespan across the world. The number of people in subsistence living conditions is decreasing, quality and duration of life, on average, are up, education is more widely available than it has ever been, in addition to fewer people dying in conflicts. Things are on the up - it's far from perfect, and there are worrying trends in there, not least of which is the increasing gulf between the extremely rich and the rest, that economic inequality, both in terms of individual people and in terms of national economies.

So the OP was saying in effect do those on this forum think the tide has changed or has the possibility of changing with what is going on now in the world?

I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was.

That 'isolated country' is the world's largest exporter and home to a sixth of the world's population. Mao was 'post WWII' and earlier on 'post WWII' was considered recent by you.

Hence my comment that Mao was confined and isolated and so his atrocities were minimally felt in the world at large. The OP is looking at the bigger picture of what is going in the world and how it could affect it at large. 

But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now.

Which isn't the fault of the mechanism, which can move the kings and queens, but the players who don't choose to.

My point being that the democratic process doesn't even touch or effects the Kings and Queens because they are below the radar.

As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.

The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.

Don't know where you're getting your info from but that's crap.

[Jack Knave]

Yeah, The EU is all about democracy!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html

[Jack Knave]

More gaffs from Junckhead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11949091/Jean-Claude-Juncker-is-right.-Europe-is-dying.html

But what is his solution, "For him, the answer to Europe’s shrinking importance in an expanding global economy is greater integration of nation-states, a Europe that looks in on itself."

[jeremyp]

A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.

The Mail on Sunday is affiliated with the Daily Mail, as such it is the most destructive entity amongst the British media. Whatever advice it gives, you should pretty much do the opposite.

Anyway, what makes you think the migration cries will be any better if we are not in the EU. Is it because you know that the resulting economic crash will make this an unattractive place to be?

[jeremyp]

Yeah, The EU is all about democracy!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html

In what way is the EU responsible for the Portuguese president making an anti-democratic decision?

[Outrider]

Pretty much not. For the most part they are just rubber stampers - a bit like the Lords. Yes they say this and that but it is the treaties that shape things and it is the Commission that takes its cue from them. I know what you are going to respond with about the voters and all that......but the fact is most of the people in Brussels' machinery agree to the stipulations of the Treaties.

If they act as rubber stampers it's because the people who elected them don't seem to care very much for their activities - they have the power, if they're not using that's not a structural problem, that's an application problem.

Your answer assumes that the EU parliament has any power is not a joke. The fact is it has little power, though it is trying to get some (way too late now) and it is a joke because of this.

No, it's not 'trying to get some' power, it already has the power, it's trying to build up some momentum and actually use it.

So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?

No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.

What about the Lisbon Treaty!!?[/quote]

Also known as 'The Reform Treaty' - which is a bit of a hint. Major changes from that were in thresholds for voting on issues (moving many from requiring unanimity to qualified majority, giving MORE chance of the European Parliament exerting the power it has) and consolidating the legal entity of the European Union.

I can't see the relevance of that to our topic. If others jump aboard the ship to Soviet Union II that doesn't mitigate it. So what is all that rhetoric about ever closer union then?

Because the point is that, instead of going for 'ever closer union' they've going for an ever-larger version of the relatively loose union we currently have. Your claim that the drive is to 'ever closer union' just isn't the case.

So the OP was saying in effect do those on this forum think the tide has changed or has the possibility of changing with what is going on now in the world?

No, the tide hasn't changed. Things have been improving for a considerable time, and they continue to do so. That the news focuses on a few isolated areas that are bucking that trend, and that they seem so horrendous by comparison, should make that apparent.

Hence my comment that Mao was confined and isolated and so his atrocities were minimally felt in the world at large. The OP is looking at the bigger picture of what is going in the world and how it could affect it at large.

A sixth of the world's population is a significant chunk of any 'big picture' you care to paint. Mao was not confined, as any review of Asian politics of the time will tell you - indeed, it was the relative security Russia felt from having communist China at it's Eastern flank that helped the Cold War spending last as long as it did.

My point being that the democratic process doesn't even touch or effects the Kings and Queens because they are below the radar.

No, they aren't, they just want you to think that - and you do their work for them.

As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.

The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.

Don't know where you're getting your info from but that's crap.

The European Commission cannot compel national governments to adopt new measures - they either have to put them to the European Parliament under agreements that have already been made, or they need to put the proposals to national governments for them to sign up to new agreements.

It's like saying that the Civil Service has power in the UK - they don't, they are the mechanism by which the power gets transferred from intent to application.

O.