Is Britain about to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Mega Tsunami
- Start date
- Status
EnglishEdward
Deity
If you change my text, please remember to delete the Originally Posted.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I believe that Spain is more popular.
If you change my text, please remember to delete the Originally Posted.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Probably not for much longer. I'd imagine Greece was great place during the Bubble
Indicators all showing that Greece has been going downwards
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
I disagree. With all these bombings in Turkey lots of people who used to go to Turkey now go to Greece.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
34k British expats living in Turkey 1k retirees
I could not have imagined Turkey would be one of those places with a sizeable British expat population which is surprising. But from the charts Spain is number 1 in the EU with over 300K
.png)
I shall hijack this thread once more to respond to this.
First, the law has been amended a thousand times. I found a good source in May to get a summary of what the law really says but it may have changed. Its changes have usually been for the better so you have to be careful when complaining about the law.
Secondly, the text is very mild compared to what I hear from the right. Juppé, our likely next president, wants to do far worse. Of the 7 main changes brought in this law, 2 are actually good things (for example until now you had to have worked for about a year before you could get unemployment benefits, now even if you're young and haven't found a job in what you studied in you can get some benefits for a year while you're looking for your first job).
Third, the two most left wing unions have shifted their position to "don't negotiate, we want the text to disappear". It won't happen without an enormous streak of giant protests, but the last protests weren't that large so that's not going anywhere. The other main union has, despite their opposition to the new law, negotiated with the government, and managed to get a few things done. Hollande is a man of compromise. That's his main characteristic. They should take advantage of it. Instead, the unions have created a toxic environment. The minister can't go anywhere without 50 people wearing hoods coming at her menacingly (and she's not actually responsible for this law : this is Valls's law).
Basically all sides say they represent the left and none of them have acted responsibly. The government has created a law that promotes flexibility at the expense of basic worker rights. The unions, for once, could have made this law semi-acceptable through negotiation but have refused to do so. All extreme left leaders are putting oil in the fire. It depresses me.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Those numbers fall quite short for Spain and probably for any EU countries since it refers to registered brits only. However being a citizen of the EU means you dont need to get a passport a visa or even register to move and live anywhere inside EU and most dont bother about it, simply move wherever they want. Real estimates for brit expats in Spain are closer to a million or so.34k British expats living in Turkey 1k retirees
I could not have imagined Turkey would be one of those places with a sizeable British expat population which is surprising. But from the charts Spain is number 1 in the EU with over 300K
2 out of 7 doesn't look like much of a good law to me, and Juppé wanting to do worse doesn't change the fact that the Loi Travail is terrible, and by extension, so is the Hollande government. Just a quick glance at the law shows that it's terrible, and should be fought against:
The legislation would revise France's Labour Code with the aim of making the country's labour market more flexible; the government claims that this will reduce unemployment.[1] Among the changes set out in the legislation, the new labour code would make it easier for companies to lay off workers, would reduce overtime payments for hours worked beyond France's statutory 35-hour workweek, and would reduce severance payments that workers are entitled to if their company has made them redundant
The unions are right, the text needs to fully disappear, and they're able to fight to get it. I haven't heard much from France this month or last month, but things in May looked pretty heavy (Nuit Debout in nearly 300 cities worldwide), and protest movements can always grow
Get what done? Superficial nothingness? The government will continue eroding workers rights unless it is forced to not do so, negotiations or not. Valls may have taken some credit for the law, but it didn't come from the head of a single person
The law will never be acceptable, and the workers won't give up in the struggle for rights. You sound much more like a right-winger than a leftist
Not all leftists are Maoists / whatever the hell Maoists call themselves nowadays.
Rioting never made life better for anyone. Progress comes through small, negotiated improvements. This is true both for those who view progress as more liberalism and for those who view it as an expansion of the welfare state.
We will never go anywhere if we don't realize that nobody speaks for all of society, or all of workers, and that there is a multitude of conflicting viewpoints and interests out there and we need to negotiate and compromise to get our message across, whatever message that may be.
The left-wing French unions represent only a tiny fraction of French workers and yet they are making life miserable for everyone and refuse to sit on the negotiation table. That's not a constructive attitude and helps explain why they represent fewer and fewer people in the first place.
Rioting never made life better for anyone. Progress comes through small, negotiated improvements. This is true both for those who view progress as more liberalism and for those who view it as an expansion of the welfare state.
We will never go anywhere if we don't realize that nobody speaks for all of society, or all of workers, and that there is a multitude of conflicting viewpoints and interests out there and we need to negotiate and compromise to get our message across, whatever message that may be.
The left-wing French unions represent only a tiny fraction of French workers and yet they are making life miserable for everyone and refuse to sit on the negotiation table. That's not a constructive attitude and helps explain why they represent fewer and fewer people in the first place.
Nuit Debout is not solely about the new law. Protest movements can grow, but at this point the protest against the law has reached its peak and has been reduced to a quarter of what it once was. Mostly due to major rewrites of the text, which has calmed down a lot of people.
The absolutely dreadful parts of the text are gone (limiting the compensations offered to workers when they're fired was part of the original bill). That's thanks to the negotiating unions.
The workers do give up in the struggle for rights. That's the whole point of this law : to make workers negotiate with their bosses so the bosses can abuse them. The boss union wants to organize "company referendums" because in most recent cases workers were ready to give up their worker rights (work longer hours for less pay for example) in exchange for promises that they'd still be employed.
"I don't have a family so I don't care about working on Sundays. Therefore I'm going to vote in favor of opening on Sundays" is the kind of monstrously stupid things you hear these days. Workers are now so afraid of losing their job that they're ready to do anything to keep it. They want to whore away their worker protection, or so their vote suggests.
Note that I'm only talking from a simple citizen's POV. The polls suggest that in 2017 voters will vote massively for Juppé and Le Pen, who don't care about worker rights. That's the will of the people. In 2011 the left voted to be lead by Hollande instead of Aubry. They chose the center left instead of the left. Once again the will of the people. If I was a member of parliament I would have an elected mandate and would vote against the law and to take down the government. But I'm only a citizen, and the majority of citizens wants this law to pass ; that's the terrible truth.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So, it's complicated.
Quite debatable if the colonial rebellion actually made life better for the average guy. I've read that American colonists enjoyed the highest living standards of anywhere in the world, including the UK.
Of course, things turned out quite alright after that rebellion, even if they were not really bad to begin with. I also agree with Tom Paine that it is rather common-sensical that a tiny island such as Britain should not rule over an entire continent one ocean away. Some sort of break-up was inevitable, and it can be argued that it was England who failed to sit at the negotiation table on that occasion. So King George was the Philippe Martinez of the American Revolution, if you will.
But anyway, there's hardly anything to be accomplished by rioting in France right now. Other than further alienating the majority of the population, further destroying the already abyssal popularity of the PS and further guaranteeing that the next Presidential election will be decided between the right and the far-right.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Surely that high standard of living also applied to their slaves. Does your "average guy" factor in all of those "guys" that were in bondage?
Surely the slaves benefited a lot from the American Revolution and were super glad their masters rebelled, extending their servitude much beyond that of slaves in the colonies that remained loyal.
But thanks for bringing slavery to one more debate where it doesn't belong. Now also mention that women couldn't vote and gays had to remain in the closet, because that's super relevant and totally disproves my point. Which was that the American colonists already had it quite good before they rebelled. Slaves weren't colonists, and slaves didn't decide to become independent from England, so slaves have nothing to do with what I said.
Lexicus
Deity
luiz said:
Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Churchill?
It just seems odd to talk of an average person and ignore slaves. It's almost like you don't think they were people
Really?
Let's see what I actually wrote and you quoted.
Statement 1
Quite debatable if the colonial rebellion actually made life better for the average guy.
Average guy. Can include both colonists and slaves. Did life improve for colonists after the rebellion? Debatable, because they already had it pretty good. Did life improve for slaves? Not really, as the vast majority remained as slaves and in fact the US abolished slavery later than the British Empire.
So statement 1 is correct regardless of bringing slaves into it.
Statement 2
I've read that American colonists enjoyed the highest living standards of anywhere in the world, including the UK.
This one is clearly and unequivocally referring only to colonists. Slaves were not colonists. So at no point did I imply that slaves had it good, or did I make any statement that would imply a failure to acknowledge slaves as people (and it pains me to have to write this cretinous statement).
So statement 2 is correct and obviously unrelated to slaves.
I was obviously talking about the people who decided to rebel (hint: not slaves) and the consequences for those same people. Slavery has no part in my argument, but as demonstrated my statement about the average guy holds true whether or not one includes slaves.
Now I hope you got the SJW Gestapo out of your system and that the above post didn't offend your sensibilities, by what is written or omitted.
A larger-than-life figure who was right about some stuff and wrong about others.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I wasn't the slightest bit offended. I just wondered why you'd limit it to "colonists," when colonists were not all, or even most of the people living here at the time. I was criticizing your analysis because it left out a large number of people, and therefore seemed rather incomplete, perhaps myopic. Your analysis of the "average guy" left out a bunch of people. People who, despite your claims to the contrary, fought on both sides of the revolution. Just as "colonists" took up sides. Many slaves were granted their freedom by fighting with the rebels, many more found freedom by using the chaos of war to escape their oppressors. Many, of course, died in the war. That's to say nothing of the free blacks, who of course can't rightly be called "colonists." Then, of course, there is the far greater number of natives who suffered subsequent to the revolution, more greatly even than when the colonies were under British rule.
- Status
Similar threads
