Heartland

mh wrote:http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaki ... king69.htm

What an utter utter utter waste.

My wife could use it to play The Sims, and then blow them all up!

Orange UK wrote:'Unicorn' born in captivity

An Italian nature reserve is claiming the world's first unicorn after a deer was born with a single horn in the centre of its head.

Deer born with single horn in Italy hailed as a 'unicorn' /PA

"This is fantasy becoming reality,'' said Gilberto Tozzi, director of the Centre of Natural Sciences in Prato, near Florence.

"The unicorn has always been a mythological animal.''

The roe deer was born in captivity in the research centre's park in the Tuscan town of Prato.

The condition is believed to have been caused by a genetic flaw, the deer's twin has two horns.

Mr Tozzi, who had never seen the condition before, said such anomalies may have inspired the myth of the unicorn.

The unicorn, a horse-like creature with magical healing powers, has appeared in legends and stories throughout history.

"This shows that even in past times, there could have been animals with this anomaly,'' he said. "It's not like they dreamed it up.''

saw that new on telly some day ago
they suppose it's the "legendary unicorn"

Isn't this a fantastic read

On the other hand, what the Irish did to Lisbon is quite the opposite

In a nutshell (if that's possible)...

What is all this EU Lisbon treaty business?

It'd streamline Europe, putting an end to all sorts of difficulties that can be met when just one member state (eg like now Ireland) gets it in its mind not to approve of something and block all the others. Everything will be weighed by population and states, so that'd be a good thing. At the same time, there'll be added democracy, which would allow people to add their own bits to legislation (1 million signatures if I'm not mistaken), subsidiarity will be more thorough. On top of that, it'll make sure we'll look more unified towards alien nations through a president and a sort of foreign secretary.

Yes it's complicated and very misty, but sadly right now that's the only way to get everyone in it

Obviousman wrote:It'd streamline Europe, putting an end to all sorts of difficulties that can be met when just one member state (eg like now Ireland) gets it in its mind not to approve of something and block all the others. Everything will be weighed by population and states, so that'd be a good thing. At the same time, there'll be added democracy, which would allow people to add their own bits to legislation (1 million signatures if I'm not mistaken), subsidiarity will be more thorough. On top of that, it'll make sure we'll look more unified towards alien nations through a president and a sort of foreign secretary.

Yes it's complicated and very misty, but sadly right now that's the only way to get everyone in it

All the above is true, but it doesn't alter the fact it's the rejected EU Constitution under another name.
That was rejected, and the Lisbon Treaty is exactly the same thing, renamed so as to allow national parliaments to over-ride the wishes of their people in the case of France and Holland, and avoid the certainty of defeat in Sweden and the UK.
No matter if you agree with the EU project or not, I don't see how anyone can find the political elite of Europe using semantics to deny it's people their promised say on their future anything other than downright scary.

I asked my dad about it but he seemed reluctant to tell me because it's such a long process ... or maybe he just doesn't know

All I got out of him is something about a big EU money pot to aid countries if they get into financial difficulty? But he said because the British government is a bit stuck up we'll never use it but in return we still have to abide by EU laws that we might not agree with. So it's better if we leave.

Is that right or did he make it up?

I don't think we should lose the pound though!

Here's the BBC's rough guide to the Lisbon Treaty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm

maybe we should stop funding a war that is wrong, a baldy guy said that, live on stage in Glass~gow, May 2003, I was there

DeWinter wrote:

Obviousman wrote:It'd streamline Europe, putting an end to all sorts of difficulties that can be met when just one member state (eg like now Ireland) gets it in its mind not to approve of something and block all the others. Everything will be weighed by population and states, so that'd be a good thing. At the same time, there'll be added democracy, which would allow people to add their own bits to legislation (1 million signatures if I'm not mistaken), subsidiarity will be more thorough. On top of that, it'll make sure we'll look more unified towards alien nations through a president and a sort of foreign secretary.

Yes it's complicated and very misty, but sadly right now that's the only way to get everyone in it

All the above is true, but it doesn't alter the fact it's the rejected EU Constitution under another name.
That was rejected, and the Lisbon Treaty is exactly the same thing, renamed so as to allow national parliaments to over-ride the wishes of their people in the case of France and Holland, and avoid the certainty of defeat in Sweden and the UK.
No matter if you agree with the EU project or not, I don't see how anyone can find the political elite of Europe using semantics to deny it's people their promised say on their future anything other than downright scary.

I can't disagree with the fact that it is indeed just a different dress for the same thing, but still it's necessary if we want to maintain our global position. If we continue to lead the EU as a downscaled VN, we'll be the next Africa so to speak.

robertzombie wrote:All I got out of him is something about a big EU money pot to aid countries if they get into financial difficulty? But he said because the British government is a bit stuck up we'll never use it but in return we still have to abide by EU laws that we might not agree with. So it's better if we leave.

Is that right or did he make it up?

I don't think we should lose the pound though!

That's more the Thatcher I-want-my-money-back reflex isn't it? I don't think the European Union is quite that, it's a means to get more done on a global scale and via that bring more wealth, comfort and so on to the inhabitants. Yes, it supports countries in financial difficulties, but in the end this will result in the lot of us being better off and more competitive. Best examples being Spain, they really only got where they are now due to European help and embracing it, and through that attracting money (as that's what makes the world go round it seems) for all of us.

Personally I find rather than watering everything down, they should put countries for the decision whether they really want to be Europe or not. But I suppose that's a bit radical for most. And politicians should stop blaming Europe for the things they f**ked up themselves or come from an even higher level (everyone seems to forget WTO finally made up our trade/subsidies/… rules) and stop taking the honours for things Europe made possible for us.

Stop funding the war? Yes we should, and get a European army (or army coordinating organisation for that matter) instead of the NAVO which is just another US involvement in our internal politics.

I did tell I'm quite for Europe, didn't I

I read that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU now make over 80% of British laws.
So I assume these laws aren't debated on in Westminster and may not be in the best interests of the British people.

Maybe it's best for our government to make our decisions, not unelected outsiders. We're meant to be in a democracy

Even though our government don't always make the best decisions I guess it's a case of better the devil you know.

I'd like to see that article, I simply don't believe that. But even if it were so, this would be solved by Lisbon a great deal as it would make the involvement of European Parliament much bigger in the creation of laws.

On the other hand, I reckon bureaucrats have a lot to say when it comes to creating laws, whichever country you're in. Watch Yes Minister European bureaucrats go through a very hard selection procedure and are usually top notch academics, so they should be quite good, compared to local bureaucrats. (not that that would ease my mind, mind you)

Got it here.

Karen writes a pretty convincing argument.

Hmm, but then again, where'd she get it? She's quite the opposite of my positive view so wouldn't wholly trust that either, if you want to be really honest go in between. (obviously more towards my side )

EU's financial house being a mess? Look at country's financials, I can assure you they're even a bigger mess and if the EU is a mess it's only because some of the countries mess it up and want money to go to places where it shouldn't be. The EU's own staff and budget is hardly bigger than an average medium sized city (excluding subsidies and all that obviously), people should be more aware of that.

EU wanting to destroy freedom and prosperity? How would you explain free market, free travel and all those things then? That would never happen if they were to restrict freedom.

People's rights can sometimes indeed go a bit wrong on either side, but then again, who'd want to live in a state where you're guilty until proven otherwise? I think people take a lot of the comforts and enjoy them without considering the other side of the story.

If people can be arrested in Britain for crimes commited in other countries, I'd consider that to be a good thing. It's not because you're in one place or another you should be privileged, is it. When you commit a crime you have to be punished, wherever you are, even if it was on the other side of the globe.

And, obviously, I could go on

I think what is being forgotten only too often is that it would never have gotten so complicated and bureaucratic without how British politicians seemed to govern against the EU rather than with it. Had they supported strong leaders of the commission who knew what direction Europe should've headed rather than trying to keep it down, we would've been a whole lot further and Europe, as a whole, would've been lots stronger.

robertzombie wrote:I read that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU now make over 80% of British laws.

You get to vote for your MEP - they're not unelected by you unless you decide not to take part in the electoral process.

I may not be savvy on many or any political issues but, one thing I do know and, I allas do is use my vote.
I wish more would.

Obviousman wrote:Isn't this a fantastic read

On the other hand, what the Irish did to Lisbon is quite the opposite

Tell me about it, man.

There was a major swing towards "no" in the past week; bottom line is that the positive sides of it just weren't brought forward, and both the "yes" and "no" campaigners ended up relying on scaremongering tactics to get a vote. What it boiled down to is that most people ended up being so confused about what it was really about that they decided to err on the side of caution. In a sense you can't really blame them, given the way it was mis-managed.

Newsworthy? In my world: My son's been out all night for the first time. Yes, that's why I'm still up...

The EU is much like the UN, something that had its roots in the aftermath of the last World War, and the desperation of those who grew up in post-war Europe to avoid it happening again.
Doesn't mean either has much use in the modern world, or any real justification for it's survival now.
Both are, however, excellent employers of former or failed politicians, their friends, families, special advisers, so on, et cetera at marvellous rates of pay and expenses. Hence all the three main parties in the UK being adamant the UK remains in them.
Sometimes they do provide moments of high comedy, such as Zimbabwe on a human rights panel. Or the EU firing it's internal corruption officer for finding and exposing corruption. Or the British Government having to pretend it actually wants to implement vote-losers like I.D cards, DNA databases, and vehicle tracking systems instead of admitting them being imposed via EU directive.
The BBC's quick Q and A was rather vague( and didn't mention the European Investment Bank's soft loan of 25 million to the BBC (EIB "finances capital investment furthering EU integration")!),so here's a bit more:
The EU President will be not elected by any of the people of Europe, he will be an appointee. Anyone thinking this explains Blairs final actions on the European stage and conversion to Catholicism should be ashamed of their cynicism.
The unelected Commission(which makes the laws) will be shrunk but given greater power, concentrating it in the hands of even fewer individuals.
Your MEP, by the way, is little more than a rubber stamp, debates in the EU parliament are often non-existent with bills being fast-tracked some 60% of the time. To do them justice, many have complained that they don't get time to properly read what they are voting on.
The EU is currently responsible for 75% of all German law. The British Government refuses to give a figure, but it's reasonable to assume it's very similair. So nearly half of our laws were passed by people who have little idea of their contents in Brussells or Strasbourg(The EU shifts it's base of operations every six or so months, for no reason other than a French hissy fit), and imposed on us. No matter how flawed, or plain ridiculous.

What frustrates me is that I would be ready to lend an ear to arguments for a United Europe to counter the U.S and China, but I find the EU's refusal to listen to the people, it's complete lack of any kind of democracy, and it's use of cheap legal trickery to get what it wants quite frightening. I suspect it might in the end provoke the kind of nationalism it was originally set up to destroy.

I think, if we did get the chance to vote on it, I'd vote against it

Whilst peace and unity is a good thing, blatant disregard of democracy ain't.

Funny that, the "loss of democracy" thing was exactly what the no campaigners were trumpeting over the past few weeks. The really hilarious thing is that these are all people who aren't exactly too fond of the democratic process either; they would much rather be given leave to order things about in a way that suits themselves. These delightful people were the primary "no" campaigners, as well as the usual crowd of anti-abortion and right-wing religious crackpots. I'll leave people to make their own minds up about the implications of that.

mh wrote:...as well as the usual crowd of anti-abortion and right-wing religious crackpots.

Welcome to Amerikkka.

Would you pay £95 for this?

Orange UK wrote: Burger King's new sandwich, named simply The Burger, makes Guinness World Record history by beating the American Double Truffle Burger which cost £65 in 1994.

It features the world's most succulent Japanese Wagyu beef with white truffles, onion tempura prepared in Cristal champagne and Italy's finest Pata Negra prosciutto

The burger will be served at the chain's Gloucester Road branch in West London or can be pre-ordered by phone.

Proceeds go to charity Help A London Child.

Burger King chiefs say it is aimed at people seeking "the ultimate burger taste experience".

But restaurant critics dismissed the burger as the latest stunt in a marketing craze which has seen Selfridges charge £85 for a sandwich and a Sloane Square department store ask £50 for a cup of coffee pre-digested by a Civet cat.

You can get the same thing at Wetherspoons for about six quid!