jope

Hah, just the usual scaremongering. Oh, wait, I forgot: it is only scaremongering when people who want to stay in the European Union use it.

I think it is debateable as to how much "influence" Britain actually has in the EU. Despite being a strong economy,

it is only 1 of 28 voices. David Cameron and his clique are fond of saying that Britain will influence European

events from within the EU, and will not be able to once it is on the outside.

However, I think it is telling that, after his discussions with EU ministers and European leaders recently, he has

not come back to the electorate with very much at all. So much for influencing the EU from the inside!

The big issue is the erosion of sovereignty and judicial process, which have become more and more subservient

to the Brussels mandarins. David Cameron is strangely silent on this issue, all the while trying to convince the

British people that they are better in the Union that facing the future uncertainty outside it. At its heart, it is

fear-mongering, and it is the strongest tactic which the "ins" can put forward in the debate.

Let's debate it, then:

The UK represents roughly 12,7 % of the EU population in the Council of the Ministers. The UK sends 74 MEPS to Brussels and Strasbourg (roughly 10 % of the parliament).

For a decision in the Council a majority of at least 16 member states representing at least 64 % of the EU population is needed.

To block a decision a minimum of just 4 member states representing at least 35 % of the EU population is needed.

At certain issues (e.g. foreign policy) each member state can veto a decision.

Adding the previous and recent opt-outs, privileges and bonuses to these figures, I think calling the UK just "1 of 28 voices" is quite a mellow way of describing the British influence within the EU.

Anyway, in the end it might just be an emotional thing. Do the British people "feel" European and do they feel that they belong to this club or do they not. I sincerely hope that they decide to stay. But whatever the outcome will be, at least it is clear afterwards.

But the idea that a country that is leaving the EU could dictate the final terms for their leaving is ridiculous.

I think it's even worse than that.

A spurned and embittered EU is going to try to screw the UK into the ground on every negotiating point. Hell hath no fury like an EU scorned. They will try to make life as difficult and unpleasant for a UK which disrupts their lovely project, even if it disadvantages them to some extent in the short term.

They don't much like the way the UK behaves inside the EU; that is nothing as to how bitter they're going to get if it leaves.

That's not to say the UK shouldn't leave; it's just that it should prepare itself for a vicious backlash from the Eurocrats.

Nah, can't really see it.

If (!) the Uk leaves, most member states want to continue having mutual friendly relations. In the end, we are all on the same side (democracy an' all). And it makes sense for all sides to continue trading. I doubt that the EU would create real obstacles that would hinder free exchange of goods (except in the service sector).

The real problem for the UK would be their absence in the decision making process of the EU. The UK would have to follow EU regulations but could not influence them in advance.

The UK will not be involved in the EU side of the talks and will have no say on the final terms offered.

I am saying: if you are out, you are out. And the EU is not obliged to fulfill any wishes the UK might have (and vice versa).

They can always say NO! to terms offered. Or what you think? Classical ultimatum leading to trade war or worse.

Or are you in favor or mafia type offers that can't be refused? EU is acting like a thug and not like a democratic union of nations as it was sold to us. Me myself want out and want EU reduced as a free trade zone. Nothing less, nothing more.

In reality, the EU and the UK would come to the conclusion that it is best for both sides, to grant mutual access to their markets.

But the idea that a country that is leaving the EU could dictate the final terms for their leaving is ridiculous.

The UK will not be involved in the EU side of the talks and will have no say on the final terms offered.

Interesting to say the least...who has given this kind of power to Brussels and other EU members to walk over the rights of a nation?

Are you saying that if Britain leaves the EU, Britain should nevertheless have rights within the union it just left?

But to answer your question: Britain did, by signing the respective EU treaties.

Are you saying that the EU will dictate any terms if any nation chooses to leave?

They would also be denying the right of participation to a country that was still a member state.

Brussels has become a joke - a bureaucratic nightmare that makes PC decisions based on ideology rather than what the people they represent want.

Britain should not leave but work with other forward looking members like Denmark, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary etc to drive through changes. Rather than simply give in to the Federal Centralist control freakes like Merkel, Juncke and their poodle Hollande who all want to impose a central planned and controlled EU - economic, political and cultural. Wonder where Comrade Merkel got that idea from?

I am saying: if you are out, you are out. And the EU is not obliged to fulfill any wishes the UK might have (and vice versa).

The UK will not be involved in the EU side of the talks and will have no say on the final terms offered.

Interesting to say the least...who has given this kind of power to Brussels and other EU members to walk over the rights of a nation?

Are you saying that if Britain leaves the EU, Britain should nevertheless have rights within the union it just left?

But to answer your question: Britain did, by signing the respective EU treaties.

If you see some posts missing in the last couple of pages I'm sure some of you know why.

Surely nothing I posted,never happened before,it was usually a ban;)

Hm, slowly moving closer to the abyss?

BBC 2 ran the first episode (it has 3) of "One Child" last night........... first run on Sundance TV in 2015...It doesn't have rave ratings 67% on Rotten tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/one-child/s01/ when it first came out. I haven't seen it a friend posted on to me---It's about a young Chinese girl adopted by a British couple---(you were allowed to do that in China at one time as you were only allowed 1 child----& who in their right mind would want a knock out beautiful looking Chinese girl) She is at Uni in the UK & is contacted by her birth mother (how??) & told that her younger brother is to be executed for a murder he didn't commit---she must come back & help.

PS....I just took some time out to look at the UK papers.....oh boy did they pan it......unbelievable rubbish was one of the kinder reports......

Sorry guys...........

So to not waste a post here is a link to Sundance TV in case anyone doesn't have it-----they do put out some good stuff....Doco's especially.

http://www.sundance.tv/series/one-child

Saw the first episode then. "Unbelievable rubbish" is a rather accurate description, I'd say. The idea itself was alright but the execution...

Seems that also Sundance TV messes up once in while.

Without wanting to add to the little ethnic correctness spat going on here...but I for one was pretty bummed about the seriously hot DC Bethany Whelan (Cush Jumbo) getting shot & killed

was she hot?

ps how can i be called racist , i am married to a brown girl

Interesting detail. Thanks for sharing.

Without wanting to add to the little ethnic correctness spat going on here...but I for one was pretty bummed about the seriously hot DC Bethany Whelan (Cush Jumbo) getting shot & killed

Had to google her, but isn't she Alicia Florick's partner in The Good Wife? Would explain why she had to be shot.

Halfway through Our Brand Is Crisis....semi serious look at a jaded campaign strategist running a bolivian presidential candidate.

Some big guns in it.

Great copy available on alluc.

Sandra Bullock, Billy Bob Thornton, Ann Dowd, this got to be good... I thought. And it was not necessarily total waste but I found it mediocre, predictable and most of all: completely harmless. Even Billy Bob Thornton could not save it. Something for the rainy Sunday afternoon...

Just watched a quirky serial killer movie ,with Emma Thompson ,Ray Winston and Robert Carlisle , its funny , give it a try .,its in all the usual places .

It helps to mention the title. But no worries, can happen to the best and BookMan keeps an eye on things.

There is no equality in injustice. If "big fish" do not get caught (for whatever reason) "small fish" cannot claim injustice. Otherwise the rule of law principle is inevitably bound to fail.

Those very very few soldiers or police officers who refused to take part in the mass murders were NOT punished. The "me or them"-situation is a myth. Pleading superior orders was no excuse in the trials after the war.

But why they don't do it 65 years ago? With all the SS Stars and the small one!!! Now the most survivors are dead. Also the most other witnesses. This people are now very old, sick, senil, demenzia and so they can't send they in jail. Shit happens!!!

But this court trials costs a lot of money and help no one. But this money can help about of other things.

jope - The "me or them"-situation is a myth

Sure, and you still believe about Santa Claus or?

No better way to get away with mass murder. "My commander told me so."

Those few who resisted gave witness statements in court: no punishment, no disciplinary measures. I do not provide links, they would lead to German sites. For those who are interested: Google "Polizeibataillone". Plenty to read including those witness statements.

And in case you are wondering why there was no punishment: it was not necessary. Apparently, most of these otherwise "normal family men" saw murder as a more or less unpleasant part of their job description.

So grab your Santa Claus and face the facts: this and all the other former SS guards had a choice and he chose to help commiting horrible crimes.

Lemme see,

At age 20 he could have said NO, and been shot in the head,

Or

He could go along with whatever his bosses said, and lived another 74 years.

Guess he made the best choice!

At 94, free medical care in a nice home at the state's expense can't be all that bad.

No, he would not have been punished. He would have been transferred to another unit and nothing else (not even a so called "Strafbataillon" = penal battalion).

But the conclusion is right, though: he had 74 years of life that his victims did not have (not necessary to do the killings himself, aiding and abetting is sufficient).

Give the guy a break.

Start at the neck.

While I am not in favor of the death penalty, I nevertheless liked the pun.

If one questioning the rights to bring to trial people who participated in genocides after 70 years, wondering whether it is ' revenge or justice ', same one shows his infinite ignorance........

But it is not OK to bring the small fish on the grill after they let ALL big fishs running away!!!

Think about what happend with a normal soldier if him spoke "NO I don't do it" in this time!!!

If they don't killed him, him where a prisoner too!!! And his complete family also!!!

http://www.academia.edu/1181198/Family_Punishment_in_Nazi_Germany_Sippenhaft_Terror_and_Myth

There is no equality in injustice. If "big fish" do not get caught (for whatever reason) "small fish" cannot claim injustice. Otherwise the rule of law principle is inevitably bound to fail.

Those very very few soldiers or police officers who refused to take part in the mass murders were NOT punished. The "me or them"-situation is a myth. Pleading superior orders was no excuse in the trials after the war.

Episode 1 of Happy Valley season 2 is available.

That was close! When searching for new shows to stream I only saw the title "Episode 1" and immediately came to the wrong conclusion that this must be season 1 again.

Tv - Madoff

This 2 part series has mixed reviews but I really enjoyed it.

Richard Dreyfuss is superb.

Note: In some places it is broken up into four parts, but It's originally two 90 minutes ones.

I like "The Big Short" and "Billions" a bit better, but nevertheless good fun. That Dreyfuss plays Madoff certainly helps .

Tv series - Stan Lee's Lucky Man

A pretty good start for this new 10 part series from the UK.

Has a very good cast including James Nesbitt and Steven Mackintosh.

Nice one!

Again, in principle just another cop show, but with some supernatural bits that spice things up ("luck as superpower"). I like it and what can go wrong with James Nesbitt as lead actor?

For those who have not heard and still worry: Netflix renewed House of Cards for Season 5 (Season 4 will be released on 04.03.2016, that is a Friday, BTW).

Saw the pilot of Lucifer some time ago and found it mildly amusing. The second episode is on the same level. In principle it is just another cop show but the Lucifer character adds an ironic touch to it. On a side note: more than 100.000 people signed a petition to prevent the show from airing because the devil should not be shown "as a likable, caring person in human flesh".

I'll give it a go..might be better than I thought

Its Not

The emphasis lies on "mildly". But I think it is alright when there is nothing else to watch. But I admit, "Billions" is a touch better.

Saw the pilot of Lucifer some time ago and found it mildly amusing. The second episode is on the same level. In principle it is just another cop show but the Lucifer character adds an ironic touch to it. On a side note: more than 100.000 people signed a petition to prevent the show from airing because the devil should not be shown "as a likable, caring person in human flesh".

Latest figures show that for the first time there are actually more women and children than men among the refugees. Explanation: those refugees who already made it reunite with their families before possible restrictive laws prevent them from reuniting in the future.

Could that also mean that we saw the peak of the refugee influx and that the majority of people who wanted to come have already arrived? I do not know, but one can ask, can one not?

The German government declared Marokko, Algeria and Tunisia to be "safe countries" (debatable, I would say, but alright then...). Let us see whether that influences the numbers in the months to come.

I still have not lost my optimism that we will get this under control. I will reconsider, if the numbers have not dropped in Summer. And we have elections in three German states. The results may become quite motivational for the democratic parties.

If this isn't satire or a troll attempt, then you must be on another planet.

Whose figures show more women and children arriving and arriving where?

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are not at war with anyone. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone from any country that doesn't like the lack of benefits should have the right to pick a country in Europe, come, be looked after, given everything they want and be treated above the native citizens? Whilst refusing to respect the local laws and culture and insist their law and religion are above all and you must bow to it?

Why don't you move to an Islamic country and protest that they aren't taking in more Moslem refugees and proving everything for nothing? Let us know how you get on.

Nah, jope is right. That's the latest news from the Greek isles and the Macedonian border, it's more women and children than males at the moment,

though we can only surmise it's for the reason he stated. What I don't see is how that flood of migrants (including refugees) is seeming to abate.

And I am wondering where the supposed males who made it to Europe first now take the money from to enable spouses and children the same

perilous journey they themselves apparently took before them.

And those Maghreb countries are obviously not at war or in a civil war, I daresay nothing gets past you. But that apparently doesn't keep some natives

from heading to Germany (not over the Meds - they take a comfy plane to Turkey where they can enter for 90 without a visa and then cross the Aegeis).

While those countries are not the nicest places on earth with a view to human rights, and you might find a couple of handful earnestly persecuted people,

e.g. trade union leaders, acceptance rate of claims for asylum is well below 3 %. They still try, because as things are it will give them years to live in a string

European nations where they can make money on welfare and street-crime.

What jope is referring to is a practice under German law where claims for asylum by nationals of individual nations can be summarily dismissed, i.e. much faster,

and the applicant would then have to bring hard evidence that in his personal case there is actual persecution. As he says, for those three states it's debatable

but tenable. Too my mind it shows under how much pressure CDU and SPD are to get the stopper back on the bottle they so recklessly opened.

What I do not agree with is the exclusion of AFD from the ranks of "democratic parties". They are, as things stand not out to abolish the pillars of German Basic Law,

there is internal democracy as could be witnessed when Henkel was ousted, they are not undemocratic because they have positions not preferred by voters of a

different (i.e. more leftist or in this case centrist) political spectrum. A democracy has to be able to tolerate dissenting views, maybe with limits, or it isn't a democracy.

What can I say? The usual quality! .

Regarding AFD: their last outbreak (shoot at refugees to defend our borders) did not make them more likable for me. But yes, they are probably still in the democratic system. I remember how the green party started out (demanding free child abuse, no riot police and other peculiar things) and nowadays they are a more or less normal leftwing party. Maybe, this will happen on the other side of the spectrum with the AFD (they probably hope that the refugee crisis will never end).

Alright, let's call it "old" and "new" parties then.

Latest figures show that for the first time there are actually more women and children than men among the refugees. Explanation: those refugees who already made it reunite with their families before possible restrictive laws prevent them from reuniting in the future.

Could that also mean that we saw the peak of the refugee influx and that the majority of people who wanted to come have already arrived? I do not know, but one can ask, can one not?

The German government declared Marokko, Algeria and Tunisia to be "safe countries" (debatable, I would say, but alright then...). Let us see whether that influences the numbers in the months to come.

I still have not lost my optimism that we will get this under control. I will reconsider, if the numbers have not dropped in Summer. And we have elections in three German states. The results may become quite motivational for the democratic parties.

If this isn't satire or a troll attempt, then you must be on another planet.

Whose figures show more women and children arriving and arriving where?

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are not at war with anyone. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone from any country that doesn't like the lack of benefits should have the right to pick a country in Europe, come, be looked after, given everything they want and be treated above the native citizens? Whilst refusing to respect the local laws and culture and insist their law and religion are above all and you must bow to it?

Why don't you move to an Islamic country and protest that they aren't taking in more Moslem refugees and proving everything for nothing? Let us know how you get on.

UNHCR: "As of 15 January 2016, just over 55 per cent of those arriving are women and children, as compared to only 27 per cent in June 2015."

Terrifying, isn't it? Anyway, here is the link.

I do not know how you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting "that anyone from any country should have the right to pick a country in Europe etc". It is neither in my words nor between the lines.

And no, I won't go to an Islamic country to demonstrate. I rather stay in Germany and help getting the situation under control. And that we will, getting it under control.

Latest figures show that for the first time there are actually more women and children than men among the refugees. Explanation: those refugees who already made it reunite with their families before possible restrictive laws prevent them from reuniting in the future.

Could that also mean that we saw the peak of the refugee influx and that the majority of people who wanted to come have already arrived? I do not know, but one can ask, can one not?

The German government declared Marokko, Algeria and Tunisia to be "safe countries" (debatable, I would say, but alright then...). Let us see whether that influences the numbers in the months to come.

I still have not lost my optimism that we will get this under control. I will reconsider, if the numbers have not dropped in Summer. And we have elections in three German states. The results may become quite motivational for the democratic parties.