Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 532

one possible solution that isn't being talked about is devo-max for England.

How would this help at all? The reason Scottish independence was rejected the first time around was because of the huge economic uncertainty it would cause plus being booted out the the EU and then being forced to rejoin. Well guess what that has now happened against their will and there already is a huge economic uncertainty. Giving England regional powers will do nothing for Scotland and there is already a huge politcal gulf between north and south in England alone.

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 532

If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone...

If that were true I would agree but the case for Scottish independence only makes sense if the plan is to rejoin the EU. In this case Scotland would not be alone but part of the EU instead of the UK.

Comment Ambiguity? (Score 1) 148

When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.

Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.

Comment You may not like this (Score 2) 148

While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.

For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.

People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.

That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 310

What I'm talking about is different from that trope though. The trope is:

Arc begins ... pointless filler ... arc ends.

What I'm talking about is:

Introduction ... arc begins . arc ends

Filler up front, if you will. But the shows I like are complete stories in that 1 season (in the rare case of a second season, like Ghost in the Shell, it's a disjoint story arc, not a continuation of anything but the characters).

Comment Re:Sure (Score 1) 532

Two problems with your position and example.

1. The US Constitution is a single Government and Country. Rules within the US Constitution are exactly sovereign. Article 5 ensures as much. Second, the Trade Union was not just working on Trade issues. The EU was not founded as a super Government where all members are subjects.

2. The EU was creating and enabling rules that have nothing to do with Commerce. The EU beginning to form their own private Army was one easy way to see that this was becoming a Government with complete control of other Governments, not just a Trade Union ensuring ease of commerce under a standard currency. Another example was the EU Forcing immigration rules onto all members. Those two examples happen to be large issues where it's easy to find substantiating facts. Those were _not_ the only two issues, just the two which are easy to see. Farrage lays out a series of abuses of power throughout his career.

Comment One more point (Score 1) 532

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"

So, the main driver of the precursor of the EU was not just trade, but to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".

Which is why it was never implemented in that way, and nowhere in the EU's founding doctrine will you find this language. That unelected bureaucrats have thwarted the initial agreement is not a surprise. The same should be said for Countries like the Iceland and UK who pulled out of the agreement.

The only country seeing any benefit from the EU for the last decade has been Germany. Which is why Iceland was the first to pull out, the UK was the 2nd, France heavily favors an exit, and Greece Spain and Italy are all either bankrupt or on the verge and would probably pull out if they could.

Comment EU Democracy not Great (Score 1) 532

And then there's the EU commission. They write legislation....The representatives don't write legislation, they get the civil service to do it.

I hate the fact that the UK is leaving the EU and I wish we were staying but your rosy picture of EU democracy is not really correct. The EU commission is not at all like a civil service because they propose legislation. Civil servants have to follow the will of their political masters they do not get to propose the laws themselves mainly because they are unelected like the commission.

The EU really needs a simplified, clearly democratic structure where the power lies with those elected at the European, not national, level and the UK should have remained in and argued for this. Sadly though the national governments know that if they did this the EU government would have enough democratic authority to directly challenge them which is the reason behind the overly complex, and democratically dubious, structure we currently have.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.