Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

James Brown

Excellent burn by Mairead McGuinness on Farage.
Video floating about.

https://youtu.be/R_0nBMS3Pgs

Boredstiff666

DubInMeath wrote: »

If music is being shared without royalties being paid, no the artist isn't being paid. If I copy an album and sell it who is getting paid? If I even just give the copy away who is getting paid?

Queen and most bands, have their own official YouTube channels.
This and given that, Queen have continued to tour with different front men since Freddie died, along with their songs being covered by younger artists means that they continued to both make money and be remembered and discovered by people.

You are correct and I have followed Queen since I was 15. A long time ago. But this isnt so black and white.

I know people who post their goods free of charge on Youtube. But their money is made by people purchasing that same product on disc and download simply because they want that product to hand and do not want to keep visiting Youtube with ads.

Other people give so much away via Youtube to entice customers to purchase other goods. Sharing this content would only help sales.

Amazon Kindle works in a similar way. You can read so much of a book for free before spending any money. You can opt to share your content if required et etc. This encourages prospective buyers to your wares. Sharing large chunks of a book encourages people to purchase it.

lawred2

Money is not made buying 'discs' and hasn't been for at least a decade

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You are correct and I have followed Queen since I was 15. A long time ago. But this isnt so black and white.

I know people who post their goods free of charge on Youtube. But their money is made by people purchasing that same product on disc and download simply because they want that product to hand and do not want to keep visiting Youtube with ads.

Other people give so much away via Youtube to entice customers to purchase other goods.

Amazon Kindle works in a similar way. You can read so much of a book for free before spending any money. You can opt to share your content if required et etc. This encourages prospective buyers to your wares.

If you want a specific song on YouTube you just Google it, people are getting it for free and live with the add that can be skipped in around five seconds.
People do give their songs for free on YouTube, the legislation isn't affecting them or anyone who wants to view them.

I know two people who do so on their own official YouTube channel, but not in the hope that they will get an album sale out of doing so, but in the hope of having more people at their next gig as that is where they make more money.

Boredstiff666

lawred2 wrote: »

Money is not made buying 'discs' and hasn't been for at least a decade

Oh ok. Then you should tell the people and websites who do it of which there are quite a few.

I just went to one of the websites £6.99 to £11.99. Of course downloads are much cheaper. If people didnt want discs they wouldnt sell them.

Boredstiff666

DubInMeath wrote: »

If you want a specific song on YouTube you just Google it, people are getting it for free and live with the add that can be skipped in around five seconds.
People do give their songs for free on YouTube, the legislation isn't affecting them or anyone who wants to view them.

I know two people who do so on their own official YouTube channel, but not in the hope that they will get an album sale out of doing so, but in the hope of having more people at their next gig as that is where they make more money.

I have no reason to argue with you. All I am doing is telling you why one size doesnt fit all and other people. Quite a lot of people are doing things differently.

There are many reasons why copywrite will kill.

For example if I had a film critque channel on youtube I will be dead because I can no longer show clips even under fair use. I would have to pay for use which will kill the channel as there is no money to be made directly out of youtube anymore unless you are a mega youtube star.

Kidchameleon

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Excellent burn by Mairead McGuinness on Farage.
Video floating about.

https://youtu.be/R_0nBMS3Pgs

Yeah she really owned him! /sarcasm

Tony EH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was never of the opinion that the EC, EEC EU could not change and develop.

With the UK (the US's primary ally in Europe) now gone from the bloc

I think it is inevitable if not desirable that we have our own defence capability.

Organisations can grow and develop Francie. What they grow and develop into is a different matter.

An EU army is not a good development as it will likely get drawn into various overseas wars that member states would rather not be involved in. If a given member state wishes to join in a conflict they can do so, without a mandate from an umbrella organisation.

There's enough unnecessary foreign wars going on with America sticking its nose into countries it doesn't belong in. We don't need that business involving the EU as well.

In any case, it isn't going to happen. There's no real appetite for it among member states and besides, and any attempt at trying one on with an EU Army will fail because it won't get past an Irish referendum. We, as a nation, are certainly not interested in such a thing.

FrancieBrady

Tony EH wrote: »

Organisations can grow and develop Francie. What they grow and develop into is a different matter.

An EU army is not a good development as it will likely get drawn into various overseas wars that member states would rather not be involved in. If a given member state wishes to join in a conflict they can do so, without a mandate from an umbrella organisation.

There's enough unnecessary foreign wars going on with America sticking its nose into countries it doesn't belong in. We don't need that business involving the EU as well.

In any case, it isn't going to happen. There's no real appetite for it among member states and besides, and any attempt at trying one on with an EU Army will fail because it won't get past an Irish referendum. We, as a nation, are certainly not interested in such a thing.

We've been involved in US wars Tony. Look at Shannon.

Tony EH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We've been involved in US wars Tony. Look at Shannon.

There's involvement and there's involvement.

As a nation, we'd rather not have the latter where we are required to send troops to die in a war that's started by politicians who don't fight in them.

Besides, plenty of Irish people were against US planes refuelling at Shannon and I agree with them.

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We've been involved in US wars Tony. Look at Shannon.

Can we put to bed the notion, for once and for all, that we have been "involved" in any war since the notable one on this soil 101 years ago.

A transit agreement for soldiers and a bit of kit IS NOT involvement in US wars. In fact, if Shannon didn't get the few bucks for it, it would be in an even more precarious financial state than it is.

Whats your opinion on the RAF protecting our Irish skies with their QRA fighter squadrons? Are you familiar, generally, with the phrase 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face?'

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

Can we put to bed the notion, for once and for all, that we have been "involved" in any war since the notable one on this soil 101 years ago.

A transit agreement for soldiers and a bit of kit IS NOT involvement in US wars. In fact, if Shannon didn't get the few bucks for it, it would be in an even more precarious financial state than it is.

Whats your opinion on the RAF protecting our Irish skies with their QRA fighter squadrons? Are you familiar, generally, with the phrase 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face?'

The RAF patrol our skies ostensibly to protect themselves. Who is a threat to us from 'the skies'?

You can handwave away Shannon...it's involvement any way you look at it. Would we allow anybody to use it if the price was right?

Dytalus

Tony EH wrote: »

Organisations can grow and develop Francie. What they grow and develop into is a different matter.

An EU army is not a good development as it will likely get drawn into various overseas wars that member states would rather not be involved in. If a given member state wishes to join in a conflict they can do so, without a mandate from an umbrella organisation.

Would it? How can you say this with any certainty? The member-states control the EU, through the assorted Councils, Commission, and the Parliament. If the Member-states don't want to engage overseas it won't happen.

Most members of the EU have no history of foreign intervention - and those that do (France, primarily) have only taken minimal action in the form of air strikes and small troop deployments. Certainly nothing on the scale of US interventionism.

Tony EH wrote: »

In any case, it isn't going to happen. There's no real appetite for it among member states and besides, and any attempt at trying one on with an EU Army will fail because it won't get past an Irish referendum. We, as a nation, are certainly not interested in such a thing.

We could, conceivably, have an exception due to our history of faux-neutrality. We had just such an exception included for us in the Lisbon treaty. While I fundamentally disagree with our neutrality as we exercise it, I do agree we should stay uninvolved so long as the people of Ireland want it that way.

It is important to note that we already contribute to EU Battlegroups, and take part in some of the PESCO initiatives. There are a great many steps between what we have now (which results in duplicate spending, R&D inefficiencies, and logistics problems) within the EU, and a fully federal army controlled by the Commission (or EuCouncil, or whatever body is handed control).

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The RAF patrol our skies ostensibly to protect themselves. Who is a threat to us from 'the skies'?

You can handwave away Shannon...it's involvement any way you look at it. Would we allow anybody to use it if the price was right?

No I don't imagine we would, just Nations with whom we are intimate, EU, NATO, the Five Eyes countries etc. Thats what being a friend is all about. But really only the US and Canada would be practical users.

Tony EH

Dytalus wrote: »

Would it? How can you say this with any certainty? The member-states control the EU, through the assorted Councils, Commission, and the Parliament. If the Member-states don't want to engage overseas it won't happen.

No, I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can. But it is certainly a possibility.

Dytalus wrote: »

Most members of the EU have no history of foreign intervention - and those that do (France, primarily) have only taken minimal action in the form of air strikes and small troop deployments. Certainly nothing on the scale of US interventionism.

That depends on how far back you go. France, Belgium. Germany, Italy all have a history of war in other countries.

sondagefaux

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats all well and good but NOBODY least of all some "goon" in Brussels should be telling us what we can and cannot say

Goon in Brussels?

This is how the EU makes laws:

Step 1: the leaders of every EU country meet every 3 months or so to decide on the strategic outline and priorities for the EU

Step 2: the European Commission (members are nominated by the governments of the EU countries, nominees can be accepted/rejected by the European Parliament, can be sacked by the European Parliament) comes up with concrete proposals, including proposed new laws, to put the strategic outline and priorities decided on by the leaders of the EU countries into practice

Step 3: the proposals for any new laws are discussed between the EU countries' diplomatic representatives in the Council of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) Any objections to a proposal can be raised here. If there are any objections to a proposal it will be modified until a compromise proposal is achieved.

Step 4: if agreed at COREPER level, the proposed new law is sent to the Euopean Parliament. It is examined by a specialist committee of MEPS, which invites experts, special interest groups and any member of the public who wants to, to give their opinions and advice on the proposed new law

Step 5: the committee of MEPs gives its opinion on whether or not it thinks the proposed new law is a good idea or not. If it thinks the proposal is completely wrong, or flawed, it goes back and forth between the Commission, the Parliament and each EU country's representatives until an agreement is reached. If no agreement is reached, the proposal is put on hold

Step 6: if an agreement is reached on a proposed new law, it is put out to votes in the European Parliament and the Council. For the proposed new law to come into force, it must be approved by a majority of MEPs' votes AND by a qualified majority of the Council (made up of each EU country's relevant Minister), a qualified majority is at least 55% of EU countries with a combined population that is at least 65% of the total EU population.

In some areas, every EU country must agree to a proposed new law before it can be approved, through unanimity in the Council: no unanimity, no approval

Step 7: EU countries are given a deadline by which the EU law must be given legal effect by their national laws

If they don't meet the deadline, or if their national law implements the EU law in a flawed way, they will be required to fix this by the Commission. If they don't co-operate with the Commission, it can ask the EU Court to punish them, or impose fines until the EU country complies. The EU country affected can appeal to the Court and the Court makes the final decision on punishment, if any.

Finally, if the new law is found by the EU Court (Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU) to be incompatible with the EU treaties or the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is either nullified completely or partially, in practice it is scrapped or modified to comply with the Treaties.

This CJEU can also nullify international agreements entered into by the EU if it decides they are not compatible with the Treaties or the Charter.

For example, the EU's original agreement on data transfers with the USA was ruled not to comply with EU law by the Court and had to be replaced.

TLDR: 'goons' in Brussels don't make EU laws. EU laws are made by agreement between the EU countries and the European Parliament. EU laws and its international agreements can be struck down by the EU's Court of Justice.

sondagefaux

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well could you explain it then? I'm happy to be corrected

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47708144

Dytalus

Tony EH wrote: »

That depends on how far back you go. France, Belgium. Germany, Italy all have a history of war in other countries.

....well that's certainly one of the weaker arguments I've seen. I could go back 150 years and point out that Germany, as a unified state, didn't even exist. Go back 160 years and neither did Italy. Heck, even France had a complete restructuring of its government post-WW2 - the (current) Fifth Republic's system of government has only existed since the 1950's.

Every one of them has fundamentally changed as nations since WW2. Germany most especially, which has turned into a nation that regards its military with something approaching disdain and neglect - the view that their army as an unfortunately necessary evil in the name of security is not uncommon.

A nation with a mindset like that is hardly going to be campaigning for wars to overthrow some middle eastern government.

sondagefaux

Tony EH wrote: »

No, I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can. But it is certainly a possibility.



That depends on how far back you go. France, Belgium. Germany, Italy all have a history of war in other countries.

The EU treaties, the body of law which says what the EU can and cannot do, do not allow for the creation of an EU army and give each country in the EU complete control over the use of its military forces.

Ireland, along with every other EU member state, has a veto on any proposed changes to the EU treaties.

There would need to be unanimous agreement between every EU country, including Ireland, before the EU treaties could be changed to allow for an EU army.

In addition, the Constitution of Ireland prohibits Irish participation in any EU common defence forces.

This could only be changed by a referendum in Ireland.

In other words, there can be no EU army unless every EU country agrees to change the EU treaties and Ireland can't participate in any common EU defence force unless the Irish people vote to remove that prohibition from the Irish Constitution.

There's nothing to stop two or more EU countries from forming a military alliance outside EU structures (eg: NATO) and neither the EU nor Ireland could stop two or more other EU countries from merging their military forces into one force, nor should there be that power for the EU.

Let's say Scotland becomes independent. Ireland and Scotland agree to merge their defence forces into one.

Should the EU have the power to stop that from happening?

Kidchameleon

Tony EH wrote: »

...any attempt at trying one on with an EU Army will fail because it won't get past an Irish referendum..

LOL. Maybe it wouldnt get past the first one, but after all the threats, BS and "legal guarantees" you can bet your house the Irish would accept it a year later.

If the EU wants something it gets it weather we Irish genuinely agree or not

sondagefaux

Dytalus wrote: »

Would it? How can you say this with any certainty? The member-states control the EU, through the assorted Councils, Commission, and the Parliament. If the Member-states don't want to engage overseas it won't happen.

Most members of the EU have no history of foreign intervention - and those that do (France, primarily) have only taken minimal action in the form of air strikes and small troop deployments. Certainly nothing on the scale of US interventionism.


We could, conceivably, have an exception due to our history of faux-neutrality. We had just such an exception included for us in the Lisbon treaty. While I fundamentally disagree with our neutrality as we exercise it, I do agree we should stay uninvolved so long as the people of Ireland want it that way.

It is important to note that we already contribute to EU Battlegroups, and take part in some of the PESCO initiatives. There are a great many steps between what we have now (which results in duplicate spending, R&D inefficiencies, and logistics problems) within the EU, and a fully federal army controlled by the Commission (or EuCouncil, or whatever body is handed control).

The 'exception' in relation to the 'Irish' Protocol which was eventually attached to the EU treaties after the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified applies to every member state, not just Ireland.

Therefore it's not an exception.

The full text of the Protocol, which is part of the EU treaties, is here:

https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/protocol_on_the_concerns_of_the_irish_people_on_the_treaty_of_lisbon_13_june_2012-en-97d2f6af-009e-4866-add4-306379e6c0fc.html

If you read it, it states, among other things, that the Treaty of Lisbon does not allow for the formation of, or conscription to, an EU army, and it gives every member state, not just Ireland, complete control over military spending and participation in any military action.

Nothing in the EU treaties compels any member state to participate in any form of military co-operation at EU level.

Such participation and co-operation is voluntary and subject to any legal constraints set out in member states' national laws and constitutions.

sondagefaux

Kidchameleon wrote: »

LOL. Maybe it wouldnt get past the first one, but after all the threats, BS and "legal guarantees" you can bet your house the Irish would accept it a year later.

If the EU wants something it gets it weather we Irish genuinely agree or not

When the Irish agree to something that they've been asked to change their minds about, that's genuine agreement, whether you like it or not.

PS: you're welcome...

Boredstiff666

sondagefaux wrote: »

Let's say Scotland becomes independent. Ireland and Scotland agree to merge their defence forces into one.

Should the EU have the power to stop that from happening?

I think they wouldn't be able to stop themselves laughing to give you an answer.

Why would Ireland want to do anything with a basket case that couldn't even afford the oil for the guns never mind the bullets.

FrancieBrady

Very true in many ways.

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/1223182898016280577

Tony EH

Dytalus wrote: »

....well that's certainly one of the weaker arguments I've seen. I could go back 150 years and point out that Germany, as a unified state, didn't even exist. Go back 160 years and neither did Italy. Heck, even France had a complete restructuring of its government post-WW2 - the (current) Fifth Republic's system of government has only existed since the 1950's.

Every one of them has fundamentally changed as nations since WW2. Germany most especially, which has turned into a nation that regards its military with something approaching disdain and neglect - the view that their army as an unfortunately necessary evil in the name of security is not uncommon.

A nation with a mindset like that is hardly going to be campaigning for wars to overthrow some middle eastern government.

You said "Most members of the EU have no history of foreign intervention"

There is, in fact, a lot of history regarding foreign interventions with EU member states.

In any case, if you believe that an EU army is a good thing, you'd certainly be of a minority opinion in that respect. I don't believe there is any appetite for such a thing, whether one is pro or anti EU.

But this is all academic musing, as it isn't going to happen anyway.

Snow Garden

Brexit was such a waste of energy. Total anticlimax after all the nonsense.

ancapailldorcha

Snow Garden wrote: »

Brexit was such a waste of energy. Total anticlimax after all the nonsense.

I think the next season will be quite boring.

Manic Moran

Can we put to bed the notion, for once and for all, that we have been "involved" in any war since the notable one on this soil 101 years ago.

I would submit that at the very least, ONUC counts. Unless there's another definition to war than 'sending troops to impose will by force of arms, whether the other guys like it or not' followed by combat operations in which folks shot at each other. ONUC, like the Korean War or the 1991 Gulf War was a UN-sanctioned war under the enforcement provisions of the UN charter, not peace-keeping.

To quote former UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, this pretty much defines the Irish participation in the Congo. "By definition, in a situation for which peace-enforcement is a potentially appropriate response, war and not peace describes the situation, and one or more of the combatants prefer it that way. This means that, unlike peacekeepers, peace enforcers are often not welcomed by one or either side(s). Rather, they are active fighters who must impose a cease-fire that is opposed by one or both combatants; in the process, the neutrality that distinguishes peacekeepers will most likely be lost."

I would distinguish it a bit in the Irish context from Afghanistan, also a UN-sanctioned operation (otherwise the Irish wouldn't be there in the first place), as Irish troops there never numbered highly enough over the twelve years they were present to make a noticeable impact and so can't really be said to have been particularly 'involved' except in the narrowest sense.

super_furry

OK lads, NOW it's a party.

https://twitter.com/LouiseRawAuthor/status/1223284275816095750?s=20

Padre_Pio

super_furry wrote: »

OK lads, NOW it's a party.

Can anyone point to the Bible verse referenced in the tweet?

"And on the 1324th day, the staw haired baboon led his people from the community of nations into the scary and unknown... This is the word of the Lord."