# Not a democracy? Really??



## Trubrit

As you know I have only been in Madrid for 4 weeks but the strangest comment was made to me yesterday. I was teaching English to the head honcho of one of Spains' largest banks and he suddenly said "Spain is not a democratic country you know" I was taken aback and asked him to expand on his thoughts. He said that there are still too many of the cronies and relatives of such from the Franco era in government but they are gradually either being voted out or popping their clogs. What is your opinion on this?


----------



## dunmovin

Trubrit said:


> As you know I have only been in Madrid for 4 weeks but the strangest comment was made to me yesterday. I was teaching English to the head honcho of one of Spains' largest banks and he suddenly said "Spain is not a democratic country you know" I was taken aback and asked him to expand on his thoughts. He said that there are still too many of the cronies and relatives of such from the Franco era in government but they are gradually either being voted out or popping their clogs. What is your opinion on this?


find a country...any country, where nepotism and cronieism doesn't have an effect on the politics..... Spain is not really that different from anywhere else


----------



## nigele2

dunmovin said:


> find a country...any country, where nepotism and cronieism doesn't have an effect on the politics..... Spain is not really that different from anywhere else


except possibly the spanish power brokers with most of the wealth are fascist and have total control. And sadly it gets past from father to son so the years that have passed since Franco's death have changed nothing. 

Trubrit it is an opinion shared by many spaniards I have spoken to.


----------



## Alcalaina

The little town where I live is known as "La cuña de socialismo andalus" (the cradle of Andalucian socialism) because of a group of politicians from here who helped regenerate the PSOE after Franco's demise. Now their children and grandchildren are getting involved in politics and carrying on the tradition. I don't have a problem with that, because they are good people, like Bibiana Aido the secretary for equal rights, committed to social change.

The Ayuntamiento has always been held by PSOE and in my opinion it is well-managed, with a few exceptions. Both the IU and the PP are continually whingeing about _enchufismo_ but the fact still remains that come election day, the townspeople will vote for the people who they think best serve their interests. 

If there is a strong protest vote against PSOE in May because of disillusionment with ZP, they may lose control. I think that would be sad because neither of these minority parties have made any practical, positive suggestions for how they would improve things.

Remembering how efficiently the Spanish people disposed of the odious Jose Maria Aznar in 2004, I would say Spain is definitely a democratic country, even if it doesn't realise it.


----------



## nigele2

Alcalaina said:


> Remembering how efficiently the Spanish people disposed of the odious Jose Maria Aznar in 2004, I would say Spain is definitely a democratic country, even if it doesn't realise it.


Alcalaina in 2004 the country was in total chaos, unemployment rising, crime rising, restricted employment rules, falling exports, declining domestic consumption, and a sharp drop in tourist revenue helped bring annual gross domestic product growth down to an estimated 2%, the lowest level since 1996. And the spanish people in the polls gave him a 5% lead .

It actually took 191 deaths in Madrid before the spanish decided to vote for Mr Bean. 

So the evidence is that the spanish people know little about how to use democracy.


----------



## Alcalaina

nigele2 said:


> Alcalaina in 2004 the country was in total chaos, unemployment rising, crime rising, restricted employment rules, falling exports, declining domestic consumption, and a sharp drop in tourist revenue helped bring annual gross domestic product growth down to an estimated 2%, the lowest level since 1996. And the spanish people in the polls gave him a 5% lead .
> 
> It actually took 191 deaths in Madrid before the spanish decided to vote for Mr Bean.
> 
> So the evidence is that the spanish people know little about how to use democracy.


But whether they knew how to use it - and I would suggest they are still learning - is a different issue. The fact is the democratic process does exist. This is not Libya!


----------



## nigele2

Alcalaina said:


> But whether they knew how to use it - and I would suggest they are still learning - is a different issue. The fact is the democratic process does exist. This is not Libya!


Agreed but it is closer to Libya than Germany


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Alcalaina said:


> Remembering how efficiently the Spanish people disposed of the odious Jose Maria Aznar in 2004, I would say Spain is definitely a democratic country, even if it doesn't realise it.


True Aznar was/ IS odious.
True the Spanish people disposed of him,
However, it did take several horrific bombs to do it.

I think Spain is just as much a democracy as many other European countries are - which is a lot more than some countries, and a lot less than others.


----------



## Alcalaina

Pesky Wesky said:


> True Aznar was/ IS odious.
> True the Spanish people disposed of him,
> However, it did take several horrific bombs to do it.
> 
> I think Spain is just as much a democracy as many other European countries are - which is a lot more than some countries, and a lot less than others.


By cosying up to Bush and Blair in the Iraq war he made Spain a target for Islamic terrorism. And then he tried to blame ETA for the bombs.

Let's hope the electorate remember that if/when he tries to take the PP back from Rajoy.


----------



## Alcalaina

nigele2 said:


> Agreed but it is closer to Libya than Germany


No it isn't. Nothing like!


----------



## Beachcomber

Spain was thriving under José María Aznar but since the PSOE was put into power by terrorists in 2004 the country has been governed by an elected dictatorship which has taken it to the brink of disaster and ruination. Many of those accused of the Madrid train bombings were found not guilty leaving the question of culpability open to doubt.


----------



## Sonrisa

Good point Beach. Spain did very well during the years that Aznar was in power, we all remeber the "Espana va bien" and the years of economic boom, healthcare boom and so on. I'd love to see the PP back in power to try to sort out the Zapatadas that zapatero has been doing ever since he was elected by the mayority of spaniards.

Because that's right. Presidents get elected by the mayority in Spain. That was the definition of democracy last time I checked.


----------



## Sonrisa

nigele2 said:


> Alcalaina in 2004 the country was in total chaos, unemployment rising, crime rising, restricted employment rules, falling exports, declining domestic consumption, and a sharp drop in tourist revenue helped bring annual gross domestic product growth down to an estimated 2%, the lowest level since 1996. .
> QUOTE]
> 
> Seriously? I wonder where you found that inforumation, it comes as a surprise to me!
> 
> In 2004 the country was not chaos at all. Unemployment was relatively low (one digit figure, that for spain it's great!), exports and domestic consuption was actually rising/
> 
> A for "A sharp drop in tourist revenue in 2004"? A quick search in the national stadistic institute website confirms that it actually increased . But this are just numbers, talk to any regular spaniard and they'll tell you , back then there was work and hope and business were flourishing. Very different from todays grim reality


----------



## jimenato

Sonrisa said:


> nigele2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcalaina in 2004 the country was in total chaos, unemployment rising, crime rising, restricted employment rules, falling exports, declining domestic consumption, and a sharp drop in tourist revenue helped bring annual gross domestic product growth down to an estimated 2%, the lowest level since 1996. .
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? I wonder where you found that inforumation, it comes as a surprise to me!
> 
> In 2004 the country was not chaos at all. Unemployment was relatively low (one digit figure, that for spain it's great!), exports and domestic consuption was actually rising/
> 
> A for "A sharp drop in tourist revenue in 2004"? A quick search in the national stadistic institute website confirms that it actually increased . But this are just numbers, talk to any regular spaniard and they'll tell you , back then there was work and hope and business were flourishing. Very different from todays grim reality
Click to expand...

That is my recollection as well. Anyone who believes that the Spain of today under Zapatero is better than the Spain in the early '90's under Aznar should take a good long look at their prejudices.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

jimenato said:


> That is my recollection as well. Anyone who believes that the Spain of today under Zapatero is better than the Spain in the early '90's under Aznar should take a good long look at their prejudices.


Confused  Jimenato.

Who do you agree with, Nigel or Sonrisa?


----------



## nigele2

Beachcomber said:


> Spain was thriving under José María Aznar but since the PSOE was put into power by terrorists in 2004 the country has been governed by an elected dictatorship which has taken it to the brink of disaster and ruination. Many of those accused of the Madrid train bombings were found not guilty leaving the question of culpability open to doubt.


"After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack, ruling out any ETA intervention" Beachcomber I like conspiracy theories but I have never heard that suggestion. 

I fully agree with you that Mr Bean and the PSOE has been a disaster and as you say led Spain to ruination. But if the PP is the best Spain can find then god help it.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

nigele2 said:


> "After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack, ruling out any ETA intervention" Beachcomber I like conspiracy theories but I have never heard that suggestion.
> 
> .


Agree



> fully agree with you that Mr Bean and the PSOE has been a disaster and as you say led Spain to ruination. But if the PP is the best Spain can find then god help it


And again, but given the alternatives that there are I think the Spanish may well vote in PP or at least not vote in PSOE.

I think all in all we are headed for a very sad Spain in the next few years. But that doesn't mean to say we have to abandon ship and go to Portugal Nigel!!!


----------



## Guest

I'm not quite sure who the blame goes on: local rulers or the international community?

Things are rough throughout the world right now. Seems like the US is starting to crawl out of the hole we were in. From what I understand, the economy in the south was based on an unstable commodity, and now that it has fallen, they're paying the price. Things aren't nearly quite as bad up north. A few months ago (I did a quick search and couldn't find the latest figures,) unemployment in the Basque country was just over 10% and just over 14% in Cantabria. These figures are quite similar to back home. 

I feel for Zapatero. In my personal opinion, he has made a number of un-popular, not-so-socialist decisions that, well, had to be made. OH complains that he doesn't know who to vote for: the right or the right. He also complains that Zapatero promised the workers weren't going to pay for the crisis, but they're paying for it anyhow. In my opinion, unfortunately, the moment you make the businesses pay for the crisis, you make Spain not internationally competitive or attractive for business, thus driving businesses away from the country and possibly further deepening the crisis. 

Anyhow, my point is that I think we're limiting ourselves far too much to blame Zapatero and/or Aznar for the good and bad in Spain. To me, the crisis is an international experience. Was America better under Bush? Applying the logic used in this thread, then, well, I guess so. However, this is not a claim I'm willing to support. Both _Presidente Arbusto_ and Aznar were lucky when they ruled, the international financial situation was good. However, Obama and Zapatero are suffering massive unpopularity for decisions they have had to make in a tough international situation. 

I'm sure someone will ask why things are better in the rest of the industrialized world. I simply don't quite know what to answer. Was Spain's economy based on an industry that was far too shaky? Are Spain's laws too prohibitive? Does Spain just need to seriously crack down on the fraud (and I still truly think there's a LOT out there)? I'm not quite sure.


----------



## nigele2

jimenato said:


> That is my recollection as well. Anyone who believes that the Spain of today under Zapatero is better than the Spain in the early '90's under Aznar should take a good long look at their prejudices.


I don't think anyone is claiming Mr Bean and the PSOE have done well. That is not the point. The question is "Are the PP fit to govern? Do they have a plan to get the economy moving and support the population? Or do they have a plan to make the corrupt upper class and those lucky enough to have a job better off at the expense of the rest?"

As for the stats I don't think Mr Bean can carry the whole can for the dependence on construction and tourism, the lack of investment, the destruction of agriculture, and the countries debt. Not even Mr Bean could have done that in 4 years - all the time he had before it was obvious to most the game was up!

But for me sometimes things that are broken need to be thrown away and you need to start again. The sooner Spain defaults the better for all.


----------



## Guest

re: PP vs. PSOE

In my opinion, someone truly needs to teach these two how to think about their country and not about their personal power. Due to the nature of the system, coalitions and/or agreement between the government and the opposition just aren't encouraged. I've lived under the same system in Canada, but I don't think it was nearly as toxic a political environment. Then again, Canada had a strong third party, the NDP. It's curious to me that the second the government does something, Rajoy appears with his beard somewhere to go: "NO! GOVERNMENT STUPID!" That, or, he sends his little lady to say the very same. Hello, government, Spain is in a hole. It's clear to me that you guys don't really care about Spain, you just care about yourselves. Why is this ok? It's human to want to conserve and/or gain power, but *politics is about serving your country, not serving yourself. *


----------



## nigele2

halydia said:


> re: PP vs. PSOE
> 
> In my opinion, someone truly needs to teach these two how to think about their country and not about their personal power. Due to the nature of the system, coalitions and/or agreement between the government and the opposition just aren't encouraged. I've lived under the same system in Canada, but I don't think it was nearly as toxic a political environment. Then again, Canada had a strong third party, the NDP. It's curious to me that the second the government does something, Rajoy appears with his beard somewhere to go: "NO! GOVERNMENT STUPID!" That, or, he sends his little lady to say the very same. Hello, government, Spain is in a hole. It's clear to me that you guys don't really care about Spain, you just care about yourselves. Why is this ok? It's human to want to conserve and/or gain power, but *politics is about serving your country, not serving yourself. *


Well said Halydia 

Now I must translate a great Rajoy/Zappy joke I sent and post it here to cheer everyone up. No matter how bad it gets a bit of humour always helps


----------



## gus-lopez

halydia said:


> re: PP vs. PSOE
> 
> In my opinion, someone truly needs to teach these two how to think about their country and not about their personal power. Due to the nature of the system, coalitions and/or agreement between the government and the opposition just aren't encouraged. I've lived under the same system in Canada, but I don't think it was nearly as toxic a political environment. Then again, Canada had a strong third party, the NDP. It's curious to me that the second the government does something, Rajoy appears with his beard somewhere to go: "NO! GOVERNMENT STUPID!" That, or, he sends his little lady to say the very same. Hello, government, Spain is in a hole. It's clear to me that you guys don't really care about Spain, you just care about yourselves. Why is this ok? It's human to want to conserve and/or gain power, but *politics is about serving your country, not serving yourself. *


Absolutely spot on . It is the same in most countries though. There are very few politicians who you can honestly say serve the people at the expense of themselves.


----------



## Alcalaina

gus-lopez said:


> Absolutely spot on . It is the same in most countries though. There are very few politicians who you can honestly say serve the people at the expense of themselves.


It will be good to see Mrypg9´s response on this, as she has been a politician herself.

Most politicians do I´m sure, set off with the intention of making society a better place, in their different ways. But faced with the harsh reality that society is governed by businessmen, not politicians, these good intentions are quickly ground into the dust.

Multinational corporations are more powerful than most governments, and they always get their way in the end. And one of the ways they do this is to bribe the elected representatives, legally or otherwise. They have the ultimate sanction; unless you do what we want, we will close our factories and move to a more compliant country.

Aznar went along with them, ZP didn´t (initially at least), and is paying the price.


----------



## jimenato

Pesky Wesky said:


> Confused  Jimenato.
> 
> Who do you agree with, Nigel or Sonrisa?


Sonrisa. 

Things are in a much worse state now than they were in 2004. 

What others here have said is correct in that the whole blame for the current situation cannot be laid on Zapatero. Like Thatcher in 1979 he inherited a nasty can of worms and he's having to do unpopular things to sort it out. Thatcher took many years to do it (and then went crazy) - Zapatero isn't going to get that long. The problems in Britain in the late '70's were largely caused in-house by the unions and Labour. The problems today in Spain have been caused largely (but not totally) by global circumstances which were beyond Spain's control so may be beyond the ability of Spain to solve alone.


----------



## nigele2

*
PALACIO REAL 
A celebratory dinner for the kings birthday.

Attending the dinner the royals, politicians, nobility, etc.



All are seated at the dinner table.

Amazed at the luxury of all before her Sonsoles (Mrs Bean) asks her husband

- Ay, José Luís, look at the cutlery so beautiful. Of pure gold encrusted with shining emeraldes. 
Por favour take one for me as a reminder of this night. I must have one of those in the house

- But, Sonsoles, por favor... 

- ¡No por favor me!!! Steal a knife for me. I want one! 

- Bueno, bueno, for gods sake. 

So the president quietly takes a knife and places it in his jacket pocket.


Opposite the Zapatero couple one finds Rajoy and his wife. They look on amazed at what they have just seen.


Snra Rajoy says to her Husband: 

- Mariano, cariño, get a knife for me. 

- Good god how am I going to do that? 

- Darling just do it, do it for me. 

- Whatever you say dearest. 

So Rajoy tries to follow Zapeteros example but with his trembling hands he betrays himself when the knife falls clattering against his wine glass ching, ching. All look in his direction.

Thinking quickly (¿!?) he stands, raises his glass, and offers a toast to the health of his majesty. All stand, raise their glasses, and toast the king. As Rajoy sitsdown he smiles at his recovery from disaster. His joy however is not shared by his wife. 






- Truely, Mariano, how clumsy you are. But Still you haven’t got my knife. Get me one.

- But my love already you can see that it is impossible. Please forget it.

-	I wont ask again 

-Ufff, 

So once again he tries but with the same result. The knife clatters against his glass, all look at him.

Once again he quickly stands, raises his glass and toasts: 

- her majesty la Reina Doña Sofía for being a beautiful and wonderful host. 


All toast la reina ¡¡¡Sofía, guapa!!!



- "You are useless" says Rajoy's wife “but I still want my knife. Sonsoles has got one; I want one!” 

Rajoy glances over to Zapertero who is s******ing along with his wife, both enjoying his antics. 

He then has an idea (?!? it's only a joke!) ; he stands, chinking his glass intentionally. He gains everyone’s attention 

- If I may be permitted I would like to perform a magic trick for the pleasure of your majesties. 

The King and Queen seem a little surprised but give their consent. Rajoy continues: 

- For this trick I will make this knife disappear. 


He takes the knife, shows it to their majesties and the rest of his audience. He carefully waves it in the air and then places it in his jacket pocket. He mutters a few magic words and happily declares that it has gone.



- The queen asks “but where has it gone?

and Rajoy replies





​*…..
*¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Zapatero, please look in your jacket pocket!!!!!!! *


----------



## Guest

gus-lopez said:


> Absolutely spot on . It is the same in most countries though. There are very few politicians who you can honestly say serve the people at the expense of themselves.


Zapatero has made a number of decisions which, in my opinion, have been political suicide.

Obama has done the same. Look at how the poor man has aged over the last few years. It's clear the stress is high. 

I'm not willing to paint the both of them as "_angelitos_" but I think there are some politicians who are willing to do what is necessary.


----------



## Guest

nigele2 said:


> *
> PALACIO REAL
> A celebratory dinner for the kings birthday.
> ......​*


*

Bwahahahaha. That's great!​*


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Thanks for the joke Nigel!

I agre with much of what has been said.

A politician who thinks about his people, sorry mrypg9 - it just doesn't seem to happen. Even if they set out that way it seems impossible to carry on in an honest work for the people way.

I seem to remember 2004 -6 as golden years, booming economy, money being spent left right and centre. Maybe I'm forgetting something??? 

And yes, for all his negative points you just can't IMO blame Zapatero entirely for the situation that Spain is in. You have to take into account the policies of the previous government and the world economy etc all of which have influenced Spain 2011.


----------



## Sonrisa

halydia said:


> I
> . Both _Presidente Arbusto_ and Aznar were lucky when they ruled, the international financial situation was good. However, Obama and Zapatero are suffering massive unpopularity for decisions they have had to make in a tough international situation.
> I'm sure someone will ask why things are better in the rest of the industrialized world. I simply don't quite know what to answer. Was Spain's economy based on an industry that was far too shaky? Are Spain's laws too prohibitive? Does Spain just need to seriously crack down on the fraud (and I still truly think there's a LOT out there)? I'm not quite sure.



I don't think Aznar was lucky at all! . When the PP came to power in 1996 they had the ardous task of recovering a ruined and bankcrupted country (remember the crisis 1993?, anyone) which they did, very succesfully. THings are better in other countries and not in Spain, because Zapatero has been busy spending money in lousy policies that do not contribute to the economic recovery of Spain and that has served the PSOE suporters very much as a distraction from the real problems that affect spanish middle class families. Been in the Caritas comedores lately? I hear they've never been so busy.


----------



## baldilocks

nigele2 said:


> Alcalaina in 2004 the country was in total chaos, unemployment rising, crime rising, restricted employment rules, falling exports, declining domestic consumption, and a sharp drop in tourist revenue helped bring annual gross domestic product growth down to an estimated 2%, the lowest level since 1996. And the spanish people in the polls gave him a 5% lead .
> 
> It actually took 191 deaths in Madrid before the spanish decided to vote for Mr Bean.
> 
> So the evidence is that the spanish people know little about how to use democracy.


Sorry, are we talking about Spain or Britain?


----------



## baldilocks

Personally, as I have said before, it will be the PSOE that gets my vote Zap included. From my experience in the village the fascist ex-franco PP spend too much time looking after themselves and the people can go hang. Zap's PlanE money was spent by the Alcalde on doing up the (already decent) bits of road outside PP supporters houses and leaving the rest of us still with potholes and worse, the three ½m x ½m square holes where they put up a huge 4m x 4m sign saying how much they were spending in our road (which bits?) plus 10cm high stubs of the posts for said sign which they just angle-ground off. 

B*st*rds!


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> It will be good to see Mrypg9´s response on this, as she has been a politician herself.
> 
> Most politicians do I´m sure, set off with the intention of making society a better place, in their different ways. But faced with the harsh reality that society is governed by businessmen, not politicians, these good intentions are quickly ground into the dust.
> 
> Multinational corporations are more powerful than most governments, and they always get their way in the end. And one of the ways they do this is to bribe the elected representatives, legally or otherwise. They have the ultimate sanction; unless you do what we want, we will close our factories and move to a more compliant country.
> 
> Aznar went along with them, ZP didn´t (initially at least), and is paying the price.


Well, I was a big fish in a very little pond.
But I did fight elections at national and European level so I met a lot of well-known politicos on both sides.
Frankly, I get very p****d off when people lump all politicians together. Yes, I know that corruption and self-serving are endemic in far too many countries. 
But I regarded -and still do - people who differ politically from me as people with different views, not immoral, evil enemies.
In all my decades as a serving politician in the UK I never came across anyone who was corrupt, self-serving or in politics to enrich themselves in any way. Of course there were a few around elsewhere but the system is capable of rooting them out and punishing them, as we have recently seen.

But I did I encounter many stupid, incompetent, vain people in all Parties though. and I certainly didn't make the right decisions all of the time. Hindsight is a rather pointless perspective.. 

The main point for me is this: constant carping and denigrating of politicians is dangerous because it gradually wears away at people's confidence and trust in their democratically-elected representatives. That can only lead to cynicism and a turning away from political activity. And that creates a vacuum which can be filled by something no sensible person would want to see.
There are many states where 'politics' doesn't exist: these places are called 'dictatorships'. They were vanquished in Central and Eastern Europe and will hopefully crumble in the Middle East.
And Alcalaina is right: there are few political decisions that are not influenced wholly or partly by factors and forces no politician, however powerful, can control.
GW Bush could invade Iraq and Afghanistan but couldn't curb the greed and stupidity of bankers.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Personally, as I have said before, it will be the PSOE that gets my vote Zap included. From my experience in the village the fascist ex-franco PP spend too much time looking after themselves and the people can go hang. Zap's PlanE money was spent by the Alcalde on doing up the (already decent) bits of road outside PP supporters houses and leaving the rest of us still with potholes and worse, the three ½m x ½m square holes where they put up a huge 4m x 4m sign saying how much they were spending in our road (which bits?) plus 10cm high stubs of the posts for said sign which they just angle-ground off.
> 
> B*st*rds!


And our PSOE council has improved our village immensely with their Plan E money.
New pavements, roads resurfaced - practically the whole of the village has had a face-lift. We've had avenues of palm trees, flowers and shrubs on our roundabouts, a new nursery school and cultural centre, a new police station and the streets are kept clean and litter-free.
That's why I'm supporting our Mayor David Valadez, who is free of any taint of corruption.
The only thing that annoys me is that Estepona paid for all the improvements to the roads and roundabouts towards Benahavis where michelle Obama stayed - that's just down the road and just in Marbella. 
So Marbella got all the publicity whilst Estepona paid the bill....


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> Good point Beach. Spain did very well during the years that Aznar was in power, we all remeber the "Espana va bien" and the years of economic boom, healthcare boom and so on. I'd love to see the PP back in power to try to sort out the Zapatadas that zapatero has been doing ever since he was elected by the mayority of spaniards.
> 
> Because that's right. Presidents get elected by the mayority in Spain. That was the definition of democracy last time I checked.


The PP still has in its ranks far too many people who have a yearning for the 'good old days' of Franco, it seems.

Ah yes...the good old days...I remember them well. Family values....law and order...
Society governed by the Catholic Church with the suppression of the rights of women, gays and anyone whose lifestyle doesn't conform to the dictates of Rome.
The imprisonment and often torture of those who dared to dissent. The abduction and forced adoption of the children of republicans and dissidents.

I have met PP supporters who long for the days 'when Spain was one, united, when the family and church were held in high esteem...'
Until the last tiniest stain of that evil fascist, Hitler and Mussolini -supporting and supported dictatorship is removed from the ranks of the PP, it should not be considered a fully-democratic party.
Remember the fool Tejero... There are still many like him about.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> The PP still has in its ranks far too many people who have a yearning for the 'good old days' of Franco, it seems.
> 
> Ah yes...the good old days...I remember them well. Family values....law and order...
> Society governed by the Catholic Church with the suppression of the rights of women, gays and anyone whose lifestyle doesn't conform to the dictates of Rome.
> The imprisonment and often torture of those who dared to dissent. The abduction and forced adoption of the children of republicans and dissidents.
> 
> I have met PP supporters who long for the days 'when Spain was one, united, when the family and church were held in high esteem...'
> Until the last tiniest stain of that evil fascist, Hitler and Mussolini -supporting and supported dictatorship is removed from the ranks of the PP, it should not be considered a fully-democratic party.
> Remember the fool Tejero... There are still many like him about.


I agree with you 100% 

The problem on here is many people just aren't aware of what went on prior to the 80s and need to do a bit of self-educating by reading a few (honest) books on the subject and learn that although they may condemn what went on in Nazi Germany, the same happenings and, in many cases for similar reasons, prevailed here. 

One of the biggest outrages was the bombing by the German Condor Squadron (with the blessing of Franco and his mob) of the innocent town of Guernica with no warning, then the aerial machine-gunning of many of the survivors of the bombing as they tried to flee across the fields. This was part of a test of the new German terror weapon "Blitzkreig" and the "Stuka scream" in readiness for the planned expansion of Nazism and invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and other middle European countries. 

What did Britain and the US do? Sit on the sidelines and watch!!!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> I agree with you 100%
> 
> The problem on here is many people just aren't aware of what went on prior to the 80s and need to do a bit of self-educating by reading a few (honest) books on the subject and learn that although they may condemn what went on in Nazi Germany, the same happenings and, in many cases for similar reasons, prevailed here.
> 
> One of the biggest outrages was the bombing by the German Condor Squadron (with the blessing of Franco and his mob) of the innocent town of Guernica with no warning, then the aerial machine-gunning of many of the survivors of the bombing as they tried to flee across the fields. This was part of a test of the new German terror weapon "Blitzkreig" and the "Stuka scream" in readiness for the planned expansion of Nazism and invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and other middle European countries.
> 
> What did Britain and the US do? Sit on the sidelines and watch!!!


Yes, it is a disgraceful episode in our history.
How many right-wing Daily Mail reading Brits know about the role played by Hitler and Mussolini, I wonder.... How many know about the atrocities carried out in Andalucia by the Italian army and Navy and the Morroccan troops under Franco's command?
How many of that type know anything about anything though....or care, as long as gin is cheap and the sun shines.
Spanish democracy- which does exist- was built on the sacrifices of the Spanish working class and the progressive middle classes.
The PP owe their very existence to those who fought for freedom in 1936 - 1939 because even though they were physically defeated their ideals of pluralism and democracy could not be put down.


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> The PP still has in its ranks far too many people who have a yearning for the 'good old days' of Franco, it seems.
> 
> Ah yes...the good old days...I remember them well. Family values....law and order...
> Society governed by the Catholic Church with the suppression of the rights of women, gays and anyone whose lifestyle doesn't conform to the dictates of Rome.
> The imprisonment and often torture of those who dared to dissent. The abduction and forced adoption of the children of republicans and dissidents.
> 
> I have met PP supporters who long for the days 'when Spain was one, united, when the family and church were held in high esteem...'
> Until the last tiniest stain of that evil fascist, Hitler and Mussolini -supporting and supported dictatorship is removed from the ranks of the PP, it should not be considered a fully-democratic party.
> Remember the fool Tejero... There are still many like him about.


 

I don't know about that. THe PP of Aznar that I lived encouranged the rights of women, gays etc, and distanced itself from the catholic church. Obviously you are going back to a darker part of history that most pp supporters or anyone else for that matter doesn't whish to be associated with.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> I don't know about that. THe PP of Aznar that I lived encouranged the rights of women, gays etc, and distanced itself from the catholic church. Obviously you are going back to a darker part of history that most pp supporters or anyone else for that matter doesn't whish to be associated with.


Of course not all PP supporters are like that. Most are ordinary right-wing conservatives and although I'll vote PSOE (because the Mayor is the honest candidate) I tend to have some conservative views myself.
But there are PP supporters like the ones I've described - I've met them - and they are and should be beyond the pale.
Rajoy has said he will repeal the law permitting same-sex marriage, hasn't he?
If true, that's not exactly gay-friendly.


----------



## baldilocks

Sonrisa said:


> I don't know about that. THe PP of Aznar that I lived encouranged the rights of women, gays etc, and distanced itself from the catholic church. Obviously you are going back to a darker part of history that most pp supporters or anyone else for that matter doesn't whish to be associated with.


Yes, but those are like the Germans and other who claim that the Holocaust didn't exist because they don't believe that so-called human beings can be so cruel and vicious to other human beings. The "I can't believe that happened so it obviously didn't!" or the "I believe in fairies, so they must exist!" brigades. Aznar was a big fan of Dubya the megalomaniac (who also courted the Blair witch) another self-seeking warmonger.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> Of course not all PP supporters are like that. Most are ordinary right-wing conservatives and although I'll vote PSOE (because the Mayor is the honest candidate) I tend to have some conservative views myself.
> But there are PP supporters like the ones I've described - I've met them - and they are and should be beyond the pale.
> Rajoy has said he will repeal the law permitting same-sex marriage, hasn't he?
> If true, that's not exactly gay-friendly.


Thus continues the Garcia Lorca debacle!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Thus continues the Garcia Lorca debacle!


Well, yes, he was undoubtedly murdered because he was gay as well as being left-wing but I don't blame Rajoy for vthat......yet.
I seem to remember reading that Lorca's surviving relatives don't want his body found and exhumed...or something along those lines.


----------



## jimenato

baldilocks said:


> Yes, but those are like the Germans and other who claim that the Holocaust didn't exist because they don't believe that so-called human beings can be so cruel and vicious to other human beings. The "I can't believe that happened so it obviously didn't!" or the "I believe in fairies, so they must exist!" brigades. Aznar was a big fan of Dubya the megalomaniac (who also courted the Blair witch) another self-seeking warmonger.


Sonrisa said "doesn't wish to be associated with" not "denies ever happened".


----------



## Alcalaina

Sonrisa said:


> I don't know about that. THe PP of Aznar that I lived encouranged the rights of women, gays etc, and distanced itself from the catholic church. Obviously you are going back to a darker part of history that most pp supporters or anyone else for that matter doesn't whish to be associated with.


Well, I think we must be talking about different people! It was the PSOE who introduced gay marriage, women's rights, campaign against domestic violence, easier divorce and abortion. Aznar fell out with the church because the bishops wouldn't back him in the clampdown of Basque and Catalan nationalism.

Here are some of JMA's noted achievements:


Sold off the government's shares in Telefonica and Repsol to his mates
Consistently supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories
Made Spain eligible for the euro by freezing public sector pay - then awarded a 15% increase to the highest earning civil servants
Sided with Bush and Blair on the Iraq war, sending in Spanish troops despite 90% public opposition
Sent Spanish troops to try and reclaim Perejil, an unoccupied rock off the coast of Morocco
Is an outspoken opponent of any measures to offset climate change, despite having signed the Kyoto agreement
Awarded a medal of civil merit to a known torturer from Franco's secret police
Used $2m of public funds to lobby for a Congressional Gold Medal for himself
Demanded a public apology from Muslims for the 700 year occupation of El Andalus
Believes that multiculturalism divides and weakens society
Recently stuck a biro down the bra of a girl trying to interview him


----------



## gus-lopez

baldilocks said:


> Personally, as I have said before, it will be the PSOE that gets my vote Zap included. From my experience in the village the fascist ex-franco PP spend too much time looking after themselves and the people can go hang. Zap's PlanE money was spent by the Alcalde on doing up the (already decent) bits of road outside PP supporters houses and leaving the rest of us still with potholes and worse, the three ½m x ½m square holes where they put up a huge 4m x 4m sign saying how much they were spending in our road (which bits?) plus 10cm high stubs of the posts for said sign which they just angle-ground off.
> 
> B*st*rds!


We had exactly what you have described & more but with the PSOE in power for 20+years. Street lights on roads to nowhere & 6 houses because a crony of the mayor lived there. Lights on a road that no-one lives on & has only a pig rearing unit. What's that all about ? Oh ! sorry you're related to the mayor ! Building projects that enhanced areas where his supporters lived . The list was endless. Since the PP took over we've at least got a fair distribuition of money & spread about areas that need it rather than friends / relatives of the last lot & nothing finding its way into the surrounding area. Plus we've had a sort out of the ones employed with their hands in the till. It wasn't too many ,much to my surprise. The worst one was the director in charge of the bin-men ! :rofl: Where there's muck there's money , as they say.


----------



## nigele2

Alcalaina said:


> Well, I think we must be talking about different people! It was the PSOE who introduced gay marriage, women's rights, campaign against domestic violence, easier divorce and abortion. Aznar fell out with the church because the bishops wouldn't back him in the clampdown of Basque and Catalan nationalism.
> 
> Here are some of JMA's noted achievements:
> 
> 
> Sold off the government's shares in Telefonica and Repsol to his mates
> Consistently supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories
> Made Spain eligible for the euro by freezing public sector pay - then awarded a 15% increase to the highest earning civil servants
> Sided with Bush and Blair on the Iraq war, sending in Spanish troops despite 90% public opposition
> Sent Spanish troops to try and reclaim Perejil, an unoccupied rock off the coast of Morocco
> Is an outspoken opponent of any measures to offset climate change, despite having signed the Kyoto agreement
> Awarded a medal of civil merit to a known torturer from Franco's secret police
> Used $2m of public funds to lobby for a Congressional Gold Medal for himself
> Demanded a public apology from Muslims for the 700 year occupation of El Andalus
> Believes that multiculturalism divides and weakens society
> Recently stuck a biro down the bra of a girl trying to interview him


Yet some still think he was a hero  

And for those who think he left office with a boom maybe should think how he did it:

Dated 2005 "Borrowing in Spain has tripled in eight years, rising from €200 billion ($240 billion) in 1996 to reach record levels of €595 billion—equal to 74.5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product."

Now even I can create a boom by borrowing and spending money. And at the same time household debt in Spain was out of control rising above disposable income for the first time in 2004.

So he sold the silver (see first on Alcalaina's list), ran up the credit cards, impoverished the population, and got very lucky when 191 spaniards were blown up. :clap2:


----------



## Beachcomber

Despite the histrionic manner in which many of those actions are presented I would applaud every single one of them especially 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. José María Aznar was as good for Spain as was Felipe Gonzáles and Adolfo Suárez in their respective heydays. It's a pity that the same can't be said of the clown, Zapatero.


----------



## baldilocks

Perhaps sonrisa is thinking of Manuel Azaña who was President 1936-9


----------



## baldilocks

Beachcomber said:


> Despite the histrionic manner in which many of those actions are presented I would applaud every single one of them especially 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. José María Aznar was as good for Spain as was Felipe Gonzáles and Adolfo Suárez in their respective heydays. It's a pity that the same can't be said of the clown, Zapatero.


So much of our perception depends on whether our historical leanings are to the left or the right and how *our local* political parties act. After all there are those who thought (maybe still do) that Nixon was great, that Thatcher was great, that Reagan was great, that Hitler was great, that Dubya was great, that Mussolini was great, and Stalin.....


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Here's another classic from Aznar










Read article here
Aznar lets his hair down | Iberosphere


----------



## Alcalaina

Beachcomber said:


> Despite the histrionic manner in which many of those actions are presented I would applaud every single one of them especially 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. José María Aznar was as good for Spain as was Felipe Gonzáles and Adolfo Suárez in their respective heydays. It's a pity that the same can't be said of the clown, Zapatero.


_Histrionic (adj): Excessively dramatic or emotional_
Please could you tell me which bits were histrionic? I was trying to be objective!

Your support for his political and economic measures comes as no surprise. But you applaud sticking a ball-point pen into someone's cleavage?


----------



## mrypg9

Beachcomber said:


> Despite the histrionic manner in which many of those actions are presented I would applaud every single one of them especially 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. José María Aznar was as good for Spain as was Felipe Gonzáles and Adolfo Suárez in their respective heydays. It's a pity that the same can't be said of the clown, Zapatero.




I don't agree with 10. Multiculturalism (whatever that was supposed to be) has led to ghettos and imo indirectly contributed to the rise of racism and extremism on all sides.
'United we stand divided we fall' is a good precept. Multi-culti has led to separatism and lack of mutual understanding and has sidelined those things that should lead to social cohesion.
We seem to be pandering to the extremists, looking for positives in places where there are none and appeasing where we should be confronting and vehemently disagreeing.
We should be reasserting the fundamental values of western liberal democracy - not that we are exactly punctilious ourselves in promoting and practising them.
The other items in the list seem uncontroversial..


----------



## Sonrisa

Well I cannot understand why some are refering back to the Franco Era, I presume you are a generation older than me and some things still hurt, but honestly I see no relation what so ever between todays AND yesterdays PP and fascism (but then again, having been born in 77, a democratic Spain is all that I have known, so shot me!) 

It sounds like there is still a big prejudice against right supporters. Talk about democracy!

Whilst agreed that Zapatero has done some very necessary social reforms, ths is all that the PSOE has done for the country. 

Anyways, my point is that I disagree with the OP, I believe that Spain is a democratic country.


----------



## Guest

...is one problem.


----------



## Sonrisa

Alcalaina said:


> _Histrionic (adj): Excessively dramatic or emotional_
> Please could you tell me which bits were histrionic? I was trying to be objective!
> 
> Your support for his political and economic measures comes as no surprise. But you applaud sticking a ball-point pen into someone's cleavage?


Thanks I didn't know that word "histrionic". I agree that some of the points you list sound a little exagerated or misleading. 

Like the one of Israel, he hasn't "consistently supported Israel illegal occupation" but instead he has in a coupule of occasions voiced his beliefs that Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself.

He didn't "Demand an apoligy for the moorish occupation of Spain" , it was just his way of expressing how ridiculus he believed it is to have to apologise for historical events. 

Perejil is a Spanish rock, and until that changes, we should defend it when other countries try to occupy it ( see, we have a rather painful history of having our rocks taken by other countries).

About the measures that are being taken to curb climate change, yes, but he also encouraged many measures in Spain during his governing years to promote greener energies and ease pollution. In a way, I'm with him on this one, many of us believe that there is too much money involved an the international community is not taken the right approaches to stop the climate crisis. 

I saw the video of the pen and come on! It doesn't really look like any kind of sexual assault or anything like that... more like a reflex, an act that hasn't been put any thought into. By no means I am saying that its' ok to put pens into womens bossoms but I forgive this one as an rather embarrasing act of unthoughfulness


----------



## Alcalaina

Sonrisa said:


> Thanks I didn't know that word "histrionic". I agree that some of the points you list sound a little exagerated or misleading.
> 
> Like the one of Israel, he hasn't "consistently supported Israel illegal occupation" but instead he has in a coupule of occasions voiced his beliefs that Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself.


A bit more than that! He founded the Friends of Israel group, specifically to deflect criticism of Israel´s illegal activities and human rights abuses.



Sonrisa said:


> He didn't "Demand an apoligy for the moorish occupation of Spain" , it was just his way of expressing how ridiculus he believed it is to have to apologise for historical events.


On closer inspection this turns out to be true. But it didn´t exactly endear him to the Muslim world. He also criticised attempts made by ZP to open a dialogue between the West and Islamic leaders.



Sonrisa said:


> Perejil is a Spanish rock, and until that changes, we should defend it when other countries try to occupy it ( see, we have a rather painful history of having our rocks taken by other countries).


You are welcome to El Peñon IMO!  But the Perejil incident made Spain look ridiculous - I remember seeing it on TV in England.


Sonrisa said:


> About the measures that are being taken to curb climate change, yes, but he also encouraged many measures in Spain during his governing years to promote greener energies and ease pollution. In a way, I'm with him on this one, many of us believe that there is too much money involved an the international community is not taken the right approaches to stop the climate crisis.


And his wife was the one who moved the traffic pollution sensers in Madrid so the readings weren´t so bad ...


Sonrisa said:


> I saw the video of the pen and come on! It doesn't really look like any kind of sexual assault or anything like that... more like a reflex, an act that hasn't been put any thought into. By no means I am saying that its' ok to put pens into womens bossoms but I forgive this one as an rather embarrasing act of unthoughfulness


Some might say a potential presidential candidate (for I believe he will be back) needs to learn to control his reflexes ...


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> So much of our perception depends on whether our historical leanings are to the left or the right and how *our local* political parties act. After all there are those who thought (maybe still do) that Nixon was great, that Thatcher was great, that Reagan was great, that Hitler was great, that Dubya was great, that Mussolini was great, and Stalin.....


I used to think like that when I was politically active but now I honestly try to distinguish between fact and sentiment. 
No justification or excuse can be found for some people (Hitler, Stalin etc.) but with a gap of three decades I can see some - but only some - of Thatcher's deeds in a different light.
I'm against the UK Coalition chiefly because of its economic policy but I agree with IDS welfare reform proposals which in any case is merely carrying on where Labour left off.
As I said before, I don't see those I disagree with as people with horns and tails. 
We may share the same objectives but differ as to how we carry them out.


----------



## dunmovin

Alcalaina said:


> You are welcome to El Peñon IMO!  But the Perejil incident made Spain look ridiculous - I remember seeing it on TV in England.


This sort of incident is not just a Spanish thing. Every few years China and Japan argue about/occupy who owns the Daiyou islands....then leave them barren again. Vietnam, Philippines and China get into a similar spat over the Paracel islands. On the 1st glance it all looks like utter stupidity, but whoever claims and holds that few lumps of rock also holds the right to any minerals or oil or gas found within the terrritorial limits

As a bonus for the governments, it helps stir up nationalistic pride.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> He didn't "Demand an apoligy for the moorish occupation of Spain" , it was just his way of expressing how ridiculus he believed it is to have to apologise for historical events.


This apologising for perceived past wrongdoing is ridiculous, I agree with you.
The UK has apologised for slavery and the Irish potato famine....
These and other similar events were deplorable....but what good is an apology centuries later? It smacks of self-praise.
Africans willingly assisted in the slave trade...some Irish politicians connived with the British.
Too many on the left talk in airy abstractions that have no connection with real life and leave 'ordinary' people perplexed.
I'm waiting for an aplogy from the landed classes for their apallingly cruel treatment of my peasant labourer ancestors..


----------



## NotinUse

The Illusion of Democracy 






There is a very good documentary called "Inside Job" everyone should watch it, it will make your blood boil.


----------



## Sonrisa

Alcalaina said:


> A bit more than that! He founded the Friends of Israel group, specifically to deflect criticism of Israel´s illegal activities and human rights abuses.
> ...



Ouch. Ok I amit that I clicked on that webpage and at first I thought it had to be some sort of joke. BUt that's right, one of the founder he is, as it turns out. I honestly had no idea.


----------



## Sonrisa

You are welcome to El Peñon IMO! :D But the Perejil incident made Spain look ridiculous - I remember seeing it on TV in England..[/QUOTE said:


> I didn't make Spain look ridiculous. The sun and the mirrow and other british tabloids portrayed it in a way that it made the Spanish look like they were hysterical and totally over reacting... Why , I do not happen to know. Rocks are important to us


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> This apologising for perceived past wrongdoing is ridiculous, I agree with you.
> The UK has apologised for slavery and the Irish potato famine....
> These and other similar events were deplorable....but what good is an apology centuries later? It smacks of self-praise.
> Africans willingly assisted in the slave trade...some Irish politicians connived with the British.
> Too many on the left talk in airy abstractions that have no connection with real life and leave 'ordinary' people perplexed.
> I'm waiting for an aplogy from the landed classes for their apallingly cruel treatment of my peasant labourer ancestors..


:clap2::clap2::clap2:


----------



## baldilocks

Sonrisa said:


> I didn't make Spain look ridiculous. The sun and the mirrow and other british tabloids portrayed it in a way that it made the Spanish look like they were hysterical and totally over reacting... Why , I do not happen to know. Rocks are important to us


Tell that to the poor s*ds who were billeted on Rockall to keep it British.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> I'm waiting for an aplogy from the landed classes for their apallingly cruel treatment of my peasant labourer ancestors..


I'm sure that a h*ll of a lot of b*st*rd born peasant children fathered under the right of the Spanish landowners to take first poke at the virgin brides of their peasants are also waiting for apologies and restitution too, just as are those born to American slave-girls "taken" by the right of their owners.


----------



## mrypg9

NotinUse said:


> The Illusion of Democracy
> YouTube - The Illusion of Democracy
> 
> 
> There is a very good documentary called "Inside Job" everyone should watch it, it will make your blood boil.


Well, blood at any temperature isn't much use in public life. And nothing in that clip that anyone with half a brain hasn't known for the past couple of decades if not longer, really.
A more constructive approach is needed, surely? What kind of structure could -and I mean *could[/B ]replace our current ways of organising public life? And I mean 'could' and not 'should'. Any alternative to theadmittedly imperfect democracy we have now might be much worse.
Democracy in the Athenian sense is no longer possible in our complex fast-changing world. 
The Greeks weren't that democratic either since, if I remember rightly, women and slaves had no voice in public affairs.*


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> . Rocks are important to us




And to us too....which is why Gibraltar is and will remain British whatever the PP may say in its programme.

Mind you, the only use I have for it is to buy Quorn for my veggie OH and cheap gin for me....I hate the place.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> And to us too....which is why Gibraltar is and will remain British whatever the PP may say in its programme.
> 
> Mind you, the only use I have for it is to buy Quorn for my veggie OH and cheap gin for me....I hate the place.


I wouldn't go there - they don't allow our little dog in!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> I wouldn't go there - they don't allow our little dog in!


I did wonder whether Our Little Azor would be banned....
The lure of cheap gin and very necessary veggie food compels us to visit but we do so as infrequently as the capacity of our freezer and my gin-drinking habit permit.


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> And to us too....which is why Gibraltar is and will remain British whatever the PP may say in its programme.
> .


No chance. We'll take it back AND make the brits apologise some couple of centuries later.


----------



## NotinUse

mrypg9 said:


> A more constructive approach is needed, surely? What kind of structure could -and I mean *could[/B ]replace our current ways of organising public life? And I mean 'could' and not 'should'. Any alternative to theadmittedly imperfect democracy we have now might be much worse.*


*

Make those who are democratically elected accountable might be a start. Admittedly there was a slight attempt to satisfy the masses with the expense scandal, but that was only because there was no other option.
Problem is the majority are uninterested with the actions and scheming of politicians. Okay some might have a grumble down at the pub but that's as far as it goes.
President Obama (uncle Tom) great speaker but what has he actually done since his pre election promises. He hasn't brought the troops home, he hasn't rolled out free health care, and he hasn't done anything to regulate the financial industry. God Bless America, why do they always make out they are God fearing, even our own make it a point to be seen going to church.
Well I really don't know what can be done, carry on moaning I suppose, i am at the age where I don't really care and that really is the crux.
At the age with too many responsibilities to risk action, and too old to care and so the cycle of corruption and greed continues.*


----------



## baldilocks

NotinUse said:


> Make those who are democratically elected accountable might be a start. Admittedly there was a slight attempt to satisfy the masses with the expense scandal, but that was only because there was no other option.
> Problem is the majority are uninterested with the actions and scheming of politicians. Okay some might have a grumble down at the pub but that's as far as it goes.
> President Obama (uncle Tom) great speaker but what has he actually done since his pre election promises. He hasn't brought the troops home, he hasn't rolled out free health care, and he hasn't done anything to regulate the financial industry. God Bless America, why do they always make out they are God fearing, even our own make it a point to be seen going to church.
> Well I really don't know what can be done, carry on moaning I suppose, i am at the age where I don't really care and that really is the crux.
> At the age with too many responsibilities to risk action, and too old to care and so the cycle of corruption and greed continues.


The problem is the stupid American electoral system. During the start of a Presidential term, the opposition can fillibuster until the mid-term elections and pull in a strong enough vote to squash anything good that might go against *their* interest. Health-care for the people was a good thing but the medical insurance lobby has the Republican ear so it has either been squashed or so watered down as to defeat its whole object. Similarly the pull-out of US troops has been squashed because US arms businesses want the war to continue and they, too, have the Republican ear. etc. etc. etc.


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> And to us too....which is why Gibraltar is and will remain British whatever the PP may say in its programme.
> 
> Mind you, the only use I have for it is to buy Quorn for my veggie OH and cheap gin for me....I hate the place.


You are aware that back in 2001 Blair was considering giving Gib back?

Gibraltar fury over Blair talks - Telegraph


----------



## gus-lopez

dunmovin said:


> You are aware that back in 2001 Blair was considering giving Gib back?
> 
> Gibraltar fury over Blair talks - Telegraph


Yes ,but in the referendum in 2002 asking whether they supported Spanish /British joint sovereignty the people voted overwhelmingly no. 17,900 against, 187 for.
In the 1967 referendum they voted to remain under British sovereignty by 99,19%. 12,138 for 44 against. They've even tried to become an independent state within the EU.
I can't see how you can ask people to change countries when they don't want to . It was different with Hong Kong as we'd only leased the place from China. 

I worked in the uk with a couple of Gibraltarians & one day the General manager asked "what part of Spain do you come from Joe ? " He barely got out alive, we had to restrain them . Even I was taken aback by the vehemence they displayed . As far as they were concerned they were British, British & nothing but British.


----------



## Sonrisa

gus-lopez said:


> I can't see how you can ask people to change countries when they don't want to . It was different with Hong Kong as we'd only leased the place from China. .


course you cant ask them...they'll say No...they are british citizens! better yet, they get the benefits from being british but none of the responsabilites! Of course they don't want to change countries! 
I'm surprised there were still a small number who didn't vote against Why would they want to be spanish? Their murky business would be destroyed, theyll have to pay taxes, smuggling will be over, etc


----------



## gus-lopez

Sonrisa said:


> course you cant ask them...they'll say No...they are british citizens! better yet, they get the benefits from being british but none of the responsabilites! Of course they don't want to change countries!
> I'm surprised there were still a small number who didn't vote against Why would they want to be spanish? Their murky business would be destroyed, theyll have to pay taxes, smuggling will be over, etc


:rofl:


----------



## littleredrooster

Sonrisa said:


> course you cant ask them...they'll say No...they are british citizens! better yet, they get the benefits from being british but none of the responsabilites! Of course they don't want to change countries!
> I'm surprised there were still a small number who didn't vote against Why would they want to be spanish? Their murky business would be destroyed, theyll have to pay taxes, smuggling will be over, etc


Looking at the extent of Spain's black economy and dodgy dealing, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are only jesting.


----------



## dunmovin

gus-lopez said:


> Yes ,but in the referendum in 2002 asking whether they supported Spanish /British joint sovereignty the people voted overwhelmingly no. 17,900 against, 187 for.
> In the 1967 referendum they voted to remain under British sovereignty by 99,19%. 12,138 for 44 against. They've even tried to become an independent state within the EU.
> I can't see how you can ask people to change countries when they don't want to . *It was different with Hong Kong as we'd only leased the place from China.
> *
> I worked in the uk with a couple of Gibraltarians & one day the General manager asked "what part of Spain do you come from Joe ? " He barely got out alive, we had to restrain them . Even I was taken aback by the vehemence they displayed . As far as they were concerned they were British, British & nothing but British.




Gus, you are almost, but not quite right about HK. Hong Kong island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to Britain,but it would have been impossible hold on to those areas when China took back the New Territories as most of the water supply and power generation was based there.
So it was agreed that China got the lot, but would allow the HK gov. 50 years of autonomous rule.


----------



## mrypg9

NotinUse said:


> Make those who are democratically elected accountable might be a start. Admittedly there was a slight attempt to satisfy the masses with the expense scandal, but that was only because there was no other option.
> Problem is the majority are uninterested with the actions and scheming of politicians. Okay some might have a grumble down at the pub but that's as far as it goes.
> President Obama (uncle Tom) great speaker but what has he actually done since his pre election promises. He hasn't brought the troops home, he hasn't rolled out free health care, and he hasn't done anything to regulate the financial industry. God Bless America, why do they always make out they are God fearing, even our own make it a point to be seen going to church.
> Well I really don't know what can be done, carry on moaning I suppose, i am at the age where I don't really care and that really is the crux.
> At the age with too many responsibilities to risk action, and too old to care and so the cycle of corruption and greed continues.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> How would you make politicians 'more accountable', though?
> It's all very well to point to the all too visible faults but there is a glaring absence of viable solutions from any quarter....just dissatisfaction without resolution, a frustrating waste of time imo.
> What we all have to understand is that in the real world of real and uncontrollable events we cannot expect politicians to do as they or we would wish. It is not the fault of one person. It is inherent in the system we have created and which most people are content with because in many countries in the world it has served most of them reasonably well and a few of them very well indeed.
> This is nothing new......it's fascinating to read that complaints of this nature were commonplace centuries ago.
> The big mistake of so-called progressive politicians is to peddle the myth of human moral and spiritual progress.
> Alongside wonderful technological advances as in for example modern dentistry we have also developed much more efficient ways of controlling populations and killing those we perceive to be our enemies.
> I spent decades of my life in politics trying to make the world a better place. Now it is in a far worse state.
> Do I despair? Not really. I take each day as it comes and try not to add by deed or word to the sum of nasty things in the world.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> course you cant ask them...they'll say No...they are british citizens! better yet, they get the benefits from being british but none of the responsabilites! Of course they don't want to change countries!
> I'm surprised there were still a small number who didn't vote against Why would they want to be spanish? Their murky business would be destroyed, theyll have to pay taxes, smuggling will be over, etc


You can't be serious!! Flamenco, siestas, chorizo and sunshine may be characteristic of Spain. Paying taxes and other social dues and operating businesses legally are not. 
Do you know we have a phrase in English: 'an old Spanish custom' when we refer to bribery and corruption?
Some of the hostility which undoubtedly exists between Gibraltar and Spain stems back to the era of Spanish 'neutrality' in the Second World War - a cover for Franco's pro-Nazi leanings. Gibraltarians were evacuated to various British territories for their safety. 
Then, post-war, Franco sealed off the mainland border for years.
Gibraltarians want to remain British and their wishes should be respected. 
I know you said we shouldn't live in the past but people have memories which influence their present thoughts and actions. Spain may now be a democracy on the western model but its recent history of flirtation with fascism, repression of political opponents and forcible adoption of their children cannot and should not be forgotten and the image of Spain still is stained with shame for some people.


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> Gibraltarians want to remain British and their wishes should be respected.


Absolutely agreed. And so does the international community. It is their legitimate right to remain british if that's what they want to be. 
British living in Spanish terrotory, that's it. Their property and business to be respected just as long as they operate within the limitis of spanish law. Just like you and most on this forum. 

As for some of the other comments, show me one country, just one, that is free from corruption and bribery. Yet most are not tax heavens and well known smuggle centers.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> Absolutely agreed. And so does the international community. It is their legitimate right to remain british if that's what they want to be.
> British living in Spanish terrotory, that's it. Their property and business to be respected just as long as they operate within the limitis of spanish law. Just like you and most on this forum.
> 
> As for some of the other comments, show me one country, just one, that is free from corruption and bribery. Yet most are not tax heavens and well known smuggle centers.


Gibraltar is not Spanish territory, though. It may be geographically attached to Spain but it was granted to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. Scandinavia is a peninsular geographically attached to Germany but Germany has no right to claim it as its own. And Spanish law surely does not have any jurisdiction in Gibraltar? 
Very many EU states as well as non-EU countries are 'tax havens' in the sense that they have very low corporation and personal tax rates.
It's not easy to evade tax if you are a EU citizen and have funds in Gibraltar and neither should it be.


----------



## Sonrisa

well at the end it always goes back to the treaty of Utrecht, doesn't it? *yawn*"yawn*. Silly king, giving rocks away, not to mention that the rock had already been invaded and he didn't really have a choice other than to sign the damned paper. 

Scandinavia is an independent country> not a colony. I can't see how it realtes to the example of Gibraltar. 


Anyways, my point was... we should defend when other countries try to take spanish rocks, like Perejil, even if the Sun and Channel 4 make us look ridiculous.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> well at the end it always goes back to the treaty of Utrecht, doesn't it? *yawn*"yawn*. Silly king, giving rocks away, not to mention that the rock had already been invaded and he didn't really have a choice other than to sign the damned paper.
> 
> Scandinavia is an independent country> not a colony. I can't see how it realtes to the example of Gibraltar.
> 
> 
> Anyways, my point was... we should defend when other countries try to take spanish rocks, like Perejil, even if the Sun and Channel 4 make us look ridiculous.


Gibraltar isn't a colony, it's a 'Crown Overseas Possession' or something like that. It's not in the EU. It's like the Channel Islands and a few other bits and pieces around the world that are leftovers from the Empire.
I think force majeure applies to Gibraltar.....in the eighteenth century and now!
The UK defended the Falklands so yes, why shouldn't Spain defend its rocks?
Although as I remember it Spain didn't support British action over the Falklands.
But then neither did I at the time although looking back I think I was wrong.

Incidentally, do you know the old joke:

Q: Why did the sun never set on the British Empire?

A: Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.....


----------



## jojo

Just out of interest, the smoking ban doesnt seem to apply in Gib!!

(I'll get me coat!!)

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Just out of interest, the smoking ban doesnt seem to apply in Gib!!
> 
> (I'll get me coat!!)
> 
> Jo xxx


I noticed that. To be frank, I loathe the place. It reminds me of Great Yarmouth with heat. 
What on earth do people who spend their holidays there do??? Where are the beaches? I suppose there are some.
I thought there would be 'posh' shops but there's only cheapo clothes shops, not that good jewellers -a bit H.Samuel-like - and the worst M&S and Next I have ever come across.
Those two shops in Gib resemble what I imagine to be Barnsley Co-op in the 1950s.

Apologies to offended ex and current residents of Barnsley who may be reading this.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> I noticed that. To be frank, I loathe the place. It reminds me of Great Yarmouth with heat.
> What on earth do people who spend their holidays there do??? Where are the beaches? I suppose there are some.
> I thought there would be 'posh' shops but there's only cheapo clothes shops, not that good jewellers -a bit H.Samuel-like - and the worst M&S and Next I have ever come across.
> Those two shops in Gib resemble what I imagine to be Barnsley Co-op in the 1950s.
> 
> Apologies to offended ex and current residents of Barnsley who may be reading this.


I dont dislike Gib actually, I know theres a lot of mess from the military and a lot of tenement buildings and apartment blocks. But underneath its steeped in war history, the town centre is a lovely place to walk and some of the back roads are really quite pretty - a bit like the channel Islands. In fact we got lost and spent a lot of time driving around those back roads lol!!! Never did get up to the top and see the caves or apes!

Jo xxx


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> Gibraltar isn't a colony, it's a 'Crown Overseas Possession' or something like that. It's not in the EU. It's like the Channel Islands and a few other bits and pieces around the world that are leftovers from the Empire.
> I think force majeure applies to Gibraltar.....in the eighteenth century and now!
> ...


Gibraltar is very much a colony according to the UN and of course Spain. The british want to call it something else, so it wont be subjected to a process of decolonisation. 

A part of Gibraltar is in Spanish territory, including the airport. It was never "granted" in the Utretch treaty or any otherwise and it has been acknowledged, by both parties, to be an illegal occupation. Yet it has never been returned. 

Personally I think Gibraltar is like the elephant in the room, everybody knows its not quite right, both morally and legally, but the international community and the United Kingdom prefer to look the other way whenever the issue is raised.


----------



## gus-lopez

So Spain will give up Ceuta & Melilla ? As the Morrocans would like them back. 
I think the Russians have probably been looking for 'loop-holes ' in the sale agreement for Alaska as well ! Spain ceeded "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever " .


----------



## Sonrisa

it would be a shame, Ceuta and Melilla are lovely 
So much more beautiful than Gibraltar. 

But two wrongs doesn't make it right, so it is hypocrital if it didn't. 
I don't know what the russians are doing, but if you are selling or "giving" your house away, it would be unfair that they new owner makes use of the neighbours backyard as well


----------



## jimenato

mrypg9 said:


> . It's not in the EU...


Gibraltar is in the EU.


----------



## jimenato

jojo said:


> Just out of interest, the smoking ban doesnt seem to apply in Gib!!
> 
> (I'll get me coat!!)
> 
> Jo xxx


There is no smoking ban in Gibraltar.


----------



## jojo

jimenato said:


> There is no smoking ban in Gibraltar.


You'd not notice! Even the cafe in Morrisons has a smoking area and it was actually so smokey that it put even me off

Jo xxx


----------



## jimenato

jojo said:


> You'd not notice! Even the cafe in Morrisons has a smoking area and it was actually so smokey that it put even me off
> 
> Jo xxx


That's because there's NO SMOKING BAN in Gibraltar.


----------



## jojo

jimenato said:


> That's because there's NO SMOKING BAN in Gibraltar.


There isnt a smoking ban in Gib lol Its how you say it!! Well maybe there should be 

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Gibraltar is in the EU.


Is Gibraltar part of the EU? 

No, it's not. I was pulled up at Heathrow Customs when passing through the blue exit and told to go through the green.

_*Gibraltar is the only British overseas territory to be technically part of the union, but it is not a member: the UK is responsible for all external interests. Gibraltar is also excluded from the customs union and the common agricultural policy*_.


----------



## dinnow

Haven't read all ten pages so apologies if I'm repeating. But isn't it hypocritical of Spain to complain about Gibraltar being British while they still cling to Ceuta and Melilla. Has anyone proposed a deal with Spain - they get Gibraltar if they give Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?


----------



## nigele2

jojo said:


> There isn't a smoking ban in Gib lol Its how you say it!! Well maybe there should be
> 
> Jo xxx


On what basis? 

I think one should not compare the Rock with Spain. Gib cares more about its rock apes than the spanish government cares about its people


----------



## nigele2

dinnow said:


> Haven't read all ten pages so apologies if I'm repeating. But isn't it hypocritical of Spain to complain about Gibraltar being British while they still cling to Ceuta and Melilla. Has anyone proposed a deal with Spain - they get Gibraltar if they give Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?


And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China? 

In any case on economic performance it is clear that Gib should take over Spain and not the other way around. That would move spain out of the EU. It could then introduce and devalue its currency without penalty.


----------



## dinnow

nigele2 said:


> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland;


Surely the logic would be that Ireland take Ulster?


----------



## Sonrisa

nigele2 said:


> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China?
> 
> Nigel, I don't mean to sound rude at all, but you do realise that the above listed are independent countries, do you? they arent colonies (or "crown possesions" as some may prefer to call it)
> 
> I'm starting to think that some here may be geographically challenged.


----------



## Sonrisa

dinnow said:


> Surely the logic would be that Ireland take Ulster?


:clap2:


----------



## Sonrisa

dinnow said:


> Haven't read all ten pages so apologies if I'm repeating. But isn't it hypocritical of Spain to complain about Gibraltar being British while they still cling to Ceuta and Melilla. Has anyone proposed a deal with Spain - they get Gibraltar if they give Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?


I know, but Ceuta and Melilla are gorgeous. 
and they are integral parts of Spain
and they arent in the UN list of overseas colonies
but yes, hypocritical, it is


----------



## dinnow

Given the current fashion in North Africa for the populace to revolt and seek to overthrow their rulers, what chance an uprising in Ceuta and Melilla against Juan Carlos? 
Are Ceuta and Melilla (on the continent of Africa) in the European Union?
Now who's geograhically challenged?


----------



## baldilocks

nigele2 said:


> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China?
> 
> In any case on economic performance it is clear that Gib should take over Spain and not the other way around. That would move spain out of the EU. It could then introduce and devalue its currency without penalty.


Of course, you could go back a bit and either take Adolf's masterplan for Europe and the world, or take Napoleon's!


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Sonrisa said:


> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China?
> 
> Nigel, I don't mean to sound rude at all, but you do realise that the above listed are independent countries, do you? they arent colonies (or "crown possesions" as some may prefer to call it)
> 
> I'm starting to think that some here may be geographically challenged.


Hahaha, that would be me!!
Yesterday a friend sent me this. How would you do on it?
No time limit or scoring points. It's supposed to be a "learning experience"
Rethinking Schools - Just For Fun - Map Game

PS Love the way you're handling this debate Sonrisa. No sarcastic comments, digs or having tantrums. A lesson in itself!


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> nigele2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China?
> 
> Nigel, I don't mean to sound rude at all, but you do realise that the above listed are independent countries, do you? they arent colonies (or "crown possesions" as some may prefer to call it)
> 
> I'm starting to think that some here may be geographically challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what 'some prefer to call it', it's a political, internationally recognised fact. Gibraltar is NOT a colony.
> Neither are the Channel Islands, which have the same status.
Click to expand...


----------



## xabiaxica

Pesky Wesky said:


> Hahaha, that would be me!!
> Yesterday a friend sent me this. How would you do on it?
> No time limit or scoring points. It's supposed to be a "learning experience"
> Rethinking Schools - Just For Fun - Map Game
> 
> PS Love the way you're handling this debate Sonrisa. No sarcastic comments, digs or having tantrums. A lesson in itself!


I'm not even going to attempt that ..................I'm [email protected] at geography


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Of course, you could go back a bit and either take Adolf's masterplan for Europe and the world, or take Napoleon's!


Adolf's plan bears a striking resemblance to the modern-day European Union....


----------



## mrypg9

Pesky Wesky said:


> url]
> 
> PS Love the way you're handling this debate Sonrisa. No sarcastic comments, digs or having tantrums. A lesson in itself!


mi opinion tambien

When I was Group Leader on our Council I'd have terrific heated debates with my Tory Opposition Group Leader....then have a drink with him after the meeting.
I'll repeat: people with different views from me are not my enemies...they are just people with different views. Claro.
Apart from fascists and communists who imo are enemies of freedom and democracy. I will not share a platform with them.


----------



## jimenato

mrypg9 said:


> Is Gibraltar part of the EU?
> 
> No, it's not. I was pulled up at Heathrow Customs when passing through the blue exit and told to go through the green.
> 
> _*Gibraltar is the only British overseas territory to be technically part of the union, but it is not a member: the UK is responsible for all external interests. Gibraltar is also excluded from the customs union and the common agricultural policy*_.


Global Home Page - Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu



> Gibraltar and the EU
> 
> As a member of the European Union, under Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome, Gibraltar is subject to all European Law (except for value added tax, customs purposes and the common agricultural policy).


Poltical Development



> In 1973 Gibraltar entered the European Economic Community, as a dependent territory in Europe, under Article 277(4) of the Treaty of Rome but was excluded, at the request of the Government of Gibraltar, from the common external tariff, the common agricultural policy and value added tax.


European Parliament election, 2004 (Gibraltar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Gibraltar's first participation in the elections to the European Parliament were held on 10 June 2004 as part of Europe-wide elections. Although part of the European Union, Gibraltar had never before voted in European Parliamentary elections, in part due to its small electorate of just over 20,000 which would cause Gibraltar to be over-represented by about 30 times if even a single seat were to be assigned.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> mi opinion tambien
> 
> When I was Group Leader on our Council I'd have terrific heated debates with my Tory Opposition Group Leader....then have a drink with him after the meeting.
> I'll repeat: people with different views from me are not my enemies...they are just people with different views. Claro.
> Apart from fascists and communists who imo are enemies of freedom and democracy. I will not share a platform with them.


But the Socialists (subsequently PSOE) were dependent upon the Communists and the Anarchists for their survival in their early days.


----------



## nigele2

Sonrisa said:


> nigele2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on that basis the UK should take Ireland; San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. should be swallowed up, and Lux should be merged into Belgium. Hell why not go the whole hog and declare the lot states of the USA or China?
> 
> Nigel, I don't mean to sound rude at all, but you do realise that the above listed are independent countries, do you? they arent colonies (or "crown possesions" as some may prefer to call it)
> 
> I'm starting to think that some here may be geographically challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> So Sonrisa your geographic knowledge makes it good to force 30000 against their will to give up their freedom and join what can only be considered an absolute mess?
> 
> Yup Ulster to Ireland, Ireland to Norway, I don't care. If you think the problems of the world can be solved by changing borders and sovereignty, rather than listening to the people, their desires and their problems then fine by me.
Click to expand...


----------



## baldilocks

Perhaps it should be pointed out, for those who may be a little woolly on these things, that the terms: 

 "Colony", 
 "Crown Protectorate", 
 "British (or other nationality) Overseas Territory", 
 "Commonwealth Country", 
 "Crown Dependency" 
 and other terms mean different things and should not be confused.

The prime difference is '_who administers_' each individual entity and to what degree, and to what other entity (if any) outside its own borders, is any form of allegiance owed.


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Global Home Page - Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
> 
> 
> 
> Poltical Development
> 
> 
> 
> European Parliament election, 2004 (Gibraltar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We have conflicting info here....but I go through the green channel at Heathrow!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> But the Socialists (subsequently PSOE) were dependent upon the Communists and the Anarchists for their survival in their early days.


PSOE is now a social democratic party. Going back in history yes, the PSOE was allied with communists and anarchists, to fight against Franco and the Falange.. If I had communist leanings I wouldn't be working for PSOE. The right wing in Spain was allied to Nazis and Fascists. There is still an element of the PP which hankers for the 'good old days' when 'we were all together.religion mattered, the family was important, homosexuality,divorce and abortion illegal'...I have had conversations with such people. Rajoy is homophobic, he wants to ban gay marriage.
The PP should learn what the UK Tory Party in the UK had to learn: you are no longer an imperial power and haven't been for several centuries. Give up the idea that you can punch above your weight. Concentrate on redistributing wealth at home. Take your social policy into the twenty-first century. Purge your ranks of those indicted for corruption - our local PSOE Mayor took the lid of the corruption of his own PSOE colleagues and as a consequence a former PSOE Consejal sits in jail awaiting trial.
But what this man did was nothing compared to the crimes of the Mayors of Marbella.....all PP.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> But what this man did was nothing compared to the crimes of the Mayors of Marbella.....all PP.


and many of those down in Almeria, plus the grinning git who heads up our ayuntamiento! Roll on May!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> But the Socialists (subsequently PSOE) were dependent upon the Communists and the Anarchists for their survival in their early days.


Very early days, yes, as I agreed. But not now.
I've had to work with some characters I'd rather not have had to to get things done. That's politics, sadly.


----------



## mrypg9

What kind of Proportional Representation is used here?


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> mi opinion tambien
> 
> When I was Group Leader on our Council I'd have terrific heated debates with my Tory Opposition Group Leader....then have a drink with him after the meeting.
> I'll repeat: people with different views from me are not my enemies...they are just people with different views. Claro.
> Apart from fascists and communists who imo are enemies of freedom and democracy. I will not share a platform with them.


So you are in favour of freedom and democracy ........................ but only for people who hold views that you approve of. Erm. I'm struggling with the logic here :confused2:
Which political party would this be then - monster, raving ......??


----------



## baldilocks

dinnow said:


> So you are in favour of freedom and democracy ........................ but only for people who hold views that you approve of. Erm. I'm struggling with the logic here :confused2:
> Which political party would this be then - monster, raving ......??


So you approve of fascism and communism - interesting - opposite ends of the political spectrum or are you a mugwump and sit on the fence?


----------



## dinnow

baldilocks said:


> So you approve of fascism and communism - interesting - opposite ends of the political spectrum or are you a mugwump and sit on the fence?


I'm not convinced by the conventional wisdom that they are opposite ends of the political spectrum. Spell out for me the differences in economic and social policy between Stalin and Franco. Both centralised power in an unelected dictator served by a central committee of acolytes. The state ran and controlled everything in both cases. The only difference between fascism and communism is that the aristocracy fares very well under the former while senior Party figures fare well under the latter. In both cases, the proletariat is screwed. The fascists offer the proles the fig-leaf of religion (Marx's opium of the masses) which is why Pius XII is known as Hitler's Pope and did ****** all to counter the Holocaust as Hitler was preferable to the Catholic church than the alternative of an atheist communist power.
Personally I do not approve of any party that curtails civil liberties. What I do approve of is free speech and liberty. Who was it said words to the effect of "I may not share your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it." We have moved too far away from free speech in the UK. To that extent the so-called "terrorists" have won. 
And don't run away with the idea that democracy is a perfect system of government. I would accept that it's probably the best system we've come up with so far. But, at base, it equates to rule by the most ignorant in society. If you want an example of democracy in its purest form, look no further than the lynch mob.


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> So you are in favour of freedom and democracy ........................ but only for people who hold views that you approve of. Erm. I'm struggling with the logic here :confused2:
> Which political party would this be then - monster, raving ......??


Read again...carefully. I did* not *say these Parties should be banned. I described them as 'enemies of democracy' which they are.
One can be in favour of freedom and democracy, recognise the right of parties that are not in favour to exist and fight elections etc......yet not wish to share a platform with them. That does not imply that they should not have a platform at all and I fail to see how you infer that from what I posted...it is my personal preference not to share it with them, that's all.
What's hard to understand about that
What's the Monster Raving Loony Party got to do with that?
Are you a member or a candidate


----------



## nigele2

dinnow said:


> I'm not convinced by the conventional wisdom that they are opposite ends of the political spectrum. Spell out for me the differences in economic and social policy between Stalin and Franco. Both centralised power in an unelected dictator served by a central committee of acolytes. The state ran and controlled everything in both cases. The only difference between fascism and communism is that the aristocracy fares very well under the former while senior Party figures fare well under the latter. In both cases, the proletariat is screwed. The fascists offer the proles the fig-leaf of religion (Marx's opium of the masses) which is why Pius XII is known as Hitler's Pope and did ****** all to counter the Holocaust as Hitler was preferable to the Catholic church than the alternative of an atheist communist power.
> Personally I do not approve of any party that curtails civil liberties. What I do approve of is free speech and liberty. Who was it said words to the effect of "I may not share your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it." We have moved too far away from free speech in the UK. To that extent the so-called "terrorists" have won.
> And don't run away with the idea that democracy is a perfect system of government. I would accept that it's probably the best system we've come up with so far. But, at base, it equates to rule by the most ignorant in society. If you want an example of democracy in its purest form, look no further than the lynch mob.


Beautifully put if I may say so  

(and of course as a believer in free speech how could you not )


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> I'm not convinced by the conventional wisdom that they are opposite ends of the political spectrum. Spell out for me the differences in economic and social policy between Stalin and Franco. Both centralised power in an unelected dictator served by a central committee of acolytes. The state ran and controlled everything in both cases. The only difference between fascism and communism is that the aristocracy fares very well under the former while senior Party figures fare well under the latter. In both cases, the proletariat is screwed. The fascists offer the proles the fig-leaf of religion (Marx's opium of the masses) which is why Pius XII is known as Hitler's Pope and did ****** all to counter the Holocaust as Hitler was preferable to the Catholic church than the alternative of an atheist communist power.
> Personally I do not approve of any party that curtails civil liberties. What I do approve of is free speech and liberty. Who was it said words to the effect of "I may not share your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it." We have moved too far away from free speech in the UK. To that extent the so-called "terrorists" have won.
> And don't run away with the idea that democracy is a perfect system of government. I would accept that it's probably the best system we've come up with so far. But, at base, it equates to rule by the most ignorant in society. If you want an example of democracy in its purest form, look no further than the lynch mob.




Nothing that has been posted suggests that political discourse should be curtailed - although of course it should be remembered 'free speech' per se doesn't exist. There are quite rightly laws which prohibit speech likely to incite to violence. No sane person cries 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. So there really is no such creature as 'free speech'. Laws and the norms of etiquette restrain our utterances.
You are correct in saying that Fascism/Nazism and Communism are similar . Both have their origin in German Romantic philosophy (Hegel) and exalt the collective (Volk or proletariat) over the individual. But there are important differences.
Hitler and Franco did not take over full state control of the means of production and distribution as was the case under Communism, apart from a few short diversions such as Lenin's New Economic Policy. Economic policy in Spain,Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy was more of an advanced form of corporatism. Private firms flourished under the Nazis - Krupps, I.G. Farben, Siemens, Hoechst.....all under private ownership but of course subservient to Nazi economic policy. The same was true of Franco's Spain - Franco was bankrolled by the likes of Juan March.
We all know that democracy is imperfect. When someone comes up with something better we'll consider replacing it. It certainly doesn't equate to rule by the ignorant - it simply means rule by the majority and that is an important distinction...unless of course you think that ignorance is transferrable and that all majorities are composed of the 'ignorant'.
How would you define 'the most ignorant in society', I wonder.....In spite of proclaiming your commitment to freedom and democracy you seem to be expressing elitist and exclusive views. If I am better educated than you (which I may or may not be) does that mean my views count for more than yours?
Some very undemocratic and illiberal views have been held by highly-educated people, you know.
As for the 'lynch mob' analogy...it is superficially plausible but deeper thought shows it to be misleading. Democracy as practised in most societies amounts to more than collective hysteria whipped into an irrational frenzy leading to violent and savage acts.
I've lived through many UK elections but have yet to see a candidate awarded top of the poll position because an angry crowd lynched his/her opponents.


----------



## mrypg9

Incidentally, Pope Pius did not do '****** all' to counter the Holocaust. Many Italian Jews were saved from deportation to the death camps because they were sheltered in the Vatican. Individual priests risked their lives to save Jews.
It is however sadly true that Pius did not protest vigorously or to any significant effect.
Neither did the Church in Germany apart from belated protests from the likes of Bishop Galen of Munster and the sacrifice of parish priests such as Father Bernard Lichtenburg who was killed at Auschwitz.
One of the most shocking things I saw in Krakow was an enormous Catholic church situated literally on the edge of the ghetto, at the end of Rekawka Street...the street with the little girl in the red coat in 'Schindler's List'.
The pious must have been completely aware of everything that went on within the ghetto.....


----------



## Sonrisa

kno


dinnow said:


> Given the current fashion in North Africa for the populace to revolt and seek to overthrow their rulers, what chance an uprising in Ceuta and Melilla against Juan Carlos?
> Are Ceuta and Melilla (on the continent of Africa) in the European Union?
> Now who's geograhically challenged?


Lol, I_ know_ Ceuta and Melilla are not located in the iberian peninsula. What I meant by "being and integral part of Spain" is that they function like any other town in Mainland Spain (althought they pay slightly less taxes, I think). Much like the Canary Island. They are, obviously, in the European Union. 
They are not being affected by the uprising in North Africa, because they are not politically connected to the african nations in any way (other than being phisically located in Africa, that is) 
And if the spaniards were to protest, they'll probably do it against the current president and not the king.


----------



## Sonrisa

Pesky Wesky said:


> Hahaha, that would be me!!
> Yesterday a friend sent me this. How would you do on it?
> No time limit or scoring points. It's supposed to be a "learning experience"
> Rethinking Schools - Just For Fun - Map Game
> 
> PS Love the way you're handling this debate Sonrisa. No sarcastic comments, digs or having tantrums. A lesson in itself!


Thanks Pesky 
Did the test, and as it turns out I had all the counties ending "istan" wrong! (yes, including the obvious Pakistan and Afghanistan! )


----------



## baldilocks

Pesky Wesky said:


> Hahaha, that would be me!!
> Yesterday a friend sent me this. How would you do on it?
> No time limit or scoring points. It's supposed to be a "learning experience"
> Rethinking Schools - Just For Fun - Map Game


I had a go on that too and had some probs with the little tiddlers. There's also another one that asks you to put all the United States in their proper places. When I can get into my yahoo mail I'll get the link and post it on here. It is good to test the old grey matter occasionally.


----------



## Sonrisa

nigele2 said:


> So Sonrisa your geographic knowledge makes it good to force 30000 against their will to give up their freedom and join what can only be considered an absolute mess?
> 
> Yup Ulster to Ireland, Ireland to Norway, I don't care. If you think the problems of the world can be solved by changing borders and sovereignty, rather than listening to the people, their desires and their problems then fine by me.


Well to be perfectly cynical, I don't think at this point in time Spain would gain anything from getting the sovereignty of Gibraltar. In fact it would go against Spains' best interests given the past and current climate of regional tensions.. the last thing Madrid needs right now is yet another bunch of national haters seeking independence. Chances are that it would turn violent towards the spaniards. 

Just as well. In todays geopolitical scene the rock has lost its precious position, and it has no value in terms of industry, food production, agriculture, oil or anything that could contribute to the welfare of the nation. As soon as it would become spanish, its banking sector would go burst, for it would no longer be a finantial heaven. and the online gaming will move elsewhere where it can operate secretly. NOw I'm being really cynical, but It would be a burden (yet another) for the rest of the country to bear. It would be fair, it would temporally raise the morale of the spaniars and their sense of national pride, but it sooo wouldn't work. 

The way I see it? it is that Gibraltar is currently a parasite to the Spanish economy, in terms of money laundering, petrol reselling, tax evaders etc, trafiking, smuggling, the list go on. THe rest of the international community turns a blind eye, Gibraltar denies it, and it is left to to the spaniards to pay the bill. ANd they cannot afford it much longer. 

Problem is, Gibraltar, because of its size and lack of resorces, is not self sustainable, so it has to rely on dirty business dealings. THe only solution would be transparency between Gibraltar, Britain and Spain as well as cooperation in cracking down by all the authorities concerned, and that aint happening any time soon. After all, its Pirate's bay.


----------



## baldilocks

Try this one for a knowledge test - Wonder how many US types will get this one right?

Know your States

When I did it, I got 42 correct.


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> Personally I do not approve of any party that curtails civil liberties. What I do approve of is free speech and liberty. Who was it said words to the effect of "I may not share your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it." We have moved too far away from free speech in the UK. To that extent the so-called "terrorists" have won.


Having reread your post, I'd welcome amplification of your assertion that 'we have moved too far away from free speech in the UK ' and that consequently: 'the so-called terrorists have won'.

Three points on that;
1) I 've already said that 'free speech' per se doesn't exist. Are you suggesting that inciting the use of violence against people belonging to minority groups should be permitted?
2) I take issue with your phrase _'so-called terrorists'_. People who plant bombs on tubes and buses, attack airports and attempt to blow up airliners are REAL terrorists, surely? 
3) How have terrorists 'won' if their freedom to incite hatred and violence is curtailed by law? Think of the Danish cartoon protest incident in London last year where those waving banners calling for a jihad against infidels were -rightly - prosecuted. How did that successsful prosecution aid and abet terrorists?
And what is encompassed in your definition of 'liberty'?
Do you mean selective freedoms enjoyed by few, such as the 'freedom to spend my money as I wish' which is often what the right mean by freedom.
Or do you mean freedom from arbitrary oppression, hunger and general destitution?
We need to get away from cliches and consider real events in the real world.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> Personally I do not approve of any party that curtails civil liberties. What I do approve of is free speech and liberty. Who was it said words to the effect of "I may not share your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it." We have moved too far away from free speech in the UK. To that extent the so-called "terrorists" have won.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Having reread your post, I'd welcome amplification of your assertion that 'we have moved too far away from free speech in the UK ' and that consequently: 'the so-called terrorists have won'.
> 
> Three points on that;
> 1) I 've already said that 'free speech' per se doesn't exist. Are you suggesting that inciting the use of violence against people belonging to minority groups should be permitted?
> 2) I take issue with your phrase _'so-called terrorists'_. People who plant bombs on tubes and buses, attack airports and attempt to blow up airliners are REAL terrorists, surely?
> 3) How have terrorists 'won' if their freedom to incite hatred and violence is curtailed by law? Think of the Danish cartoon protest incident in London last year where those waving banners calling for a jihad against infidels were -rightly - prosecuted. How did that successsful prosecution aid and abet terrorists?
> And what is encompassed in your definition of 'liberty'?
> Do you mean selective freedoms enjoyed by few, such as the 'freedom to spend my money as I wish' which is often what the right mean by freedom.
> Or do you mean freedom from arbitrary oppression, hunger and general destitution?
> We need to get away from cliches and consider real events in the real world.


The trouble is the so-called "right" to free speech is still there and exploited by minorities to preach hatred against those who are kind enough to accommodate them. For many if they used similar speech against the government and people in their own countries they would be stoned to death. Yet if a Brit attempts to use "free speech" and criticise the foregoing people they are up in arms - HYPOCRITES! Send them back to where they came from and let them see just how much welfare support they get there and just how welcome they and their free speech is there.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> The trouble is the so-called "right" to free speech is still there and exploited by minorities to preach hatred against those who are kind enough to accommodate them. For many if they used similar speech against the government and people in their own countries they would be stoned to death. Yet if a Brit attempts to use "free speech" and criticise the foregoing people they are up in arms - HYPOCRITES! Send them back to where they came from and let them see just how much welfare support they get there and just how welcome they and their free speech is there.


I agree with that 100%.
We seem far too keen to accommodate the views of those who publicly state their aim is to destroy us. Too much tolerance of the intolerant leads to the suppression of democracy.
It's about time we defended western values with more enthusiasm. That doesn't mean that our values are perfect, far from it. But any religion or political creed that advocates the killing of those who don't share their views and the suppression of women, gays etc. is inferior to the values espoused by the west, however misguided and cruel some of our actions might have been.
Having just experienced Broad Street in Birmingham on a Friday night, I'm appalled at some aspects of our society.
But unseemly as the sight of drunken, violent half-dressed young people may be, I'd rather put up with that than forced marriage, female circumcision and honour killings.
Does allowing these views to be publicly promulgated promote 'freedom'????


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> But any religion or political creed that advocates the killing of those who don't share their views and the suppression of women, gays etc. is inferior to the values espoused by the west, however misguided and cruel some of our actions might have been.


Don't say that too loudly around the "franco-ists", it could be seen as a criticism of the church and the values espoused by them and your neighbours.


----------



## baldilocks

Is it *my* confusion or has this thread/forum, itself, got confused in its attribution of quotes?


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Don't say that too loudly around the "franco-ists", it could be seen as a criticism of the church and the values espoused by them and your neighbours.


So be it. I made a speech a couple of years ago at TUC criticising political Islam and was warned not to be 'controversial' and that I might 'offend people'.
You and I are of a generation that values the right to express our reasoned opinions and won't easily be robbed of them.
It all depends on your choice of words. You can criticise some aspects of the Catholic Church without being violent or abusive.
For many years I was myself a practising Catholic but disagreed with teachings for which I could find no justification in scripture.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Is it *my* confusion or has this thread/forum, itself, got confused in its attribution of quotes?



Yes, it has...and it's probably my fault


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, it has...and it's probably my fault



Hhhmm, well not wishing to apportion blame............  I've had a go at rectifying them!!?? 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

Sonrisa said:


> Well to be perfectly cynical, I don't think at this point in time Spain would gain anything from getting the sovereignty of Gibraltar. In fact it would go against Spains' best interests given the past and current climate of regional tensions.. the last thing Madrid needs right now is yet another bunch of national haters seeking independence. Chances are that it would turn violent towards the spaniards.
> 
> Just as well. In todays geopolitical scene the rock has lost its precious position, and it has no value in terms of industry, food production, agriculture, oil or anything that could contribute to the welfare of the nation. As soon as it would become spanish, its banking sector would go burst, for it would no longer be a finantial heaven. and the online gaming will move elsewhere where it can operate secretly. NOw I'm being really cynical, but It would be a burden (yet another) for the rest of the country to bear. It would be fair, it would temporally raise the morale of the spaniars and their sense of national pride, but it sooo wouldn't work.
> 
> The way I see it? it is that Gibraltar is currently a parasite to the Spanish economy, in terms of money laundering, petrol reselling, tax evaders etc, trafiking, smuggling, the list go on. THe rest of the international community turns a blind eye, Gibraltar denies it, and it is left to to the spaniards to pay the bill. ANd they cannot afford it much longer.
> 
> Problem is, Gibraltar, because of its size and lack of resorces, is not self sustainable, so it has to rely on dirty business dealings. THe only solution would be transparency between Gibraltar, Britain and Spain as well as cooperation in cracking down by all the authorities concerned, and that aint happening any time soon. After all, its Pirate's bay.


Well said Sonrisa. 

There are an awful lot of people who would lose their only source of income if Gib became part of Spain. Regardless of who "owns" it, until prices are the same both sides of the border, smuggling will continue to be an attractive career option round here.

I´d like to see it blown out of the water, apes and all.


----------



## gus-lopez

Alcalaina said:


> Well said Sonrisa.
> 
> There are an awful lot of people who would lose their only source of income if Gib became part of Spain. Regardless of who "owns" it, until prices are the same both sides of the border, smuggling will continue to be an attractive career option round here.
> 
> I´d like to see it blown out of the water, apes and all.


 What have the apes done to you ?


----------



## mrypg9

gus-lopez said:


> What have the apes done to you ?


And what about my cheap gin

I hate the place but if it wants to stay British, as it obviously does, then smuggling and other vices is a side issue, irrelevant to the principle of self-determination.
Incidentally, should we ask France if they would like the Channel Islands? The Republic of Ireland might like to have the Isle of Man?


----------



## jimenato

Good thread. Credit to all for sensible and thought-provoking posts.:clap2:


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Incidentally, should we ask France if they would like the Channel Islands? The Republic of Ireland might like to have the Isle of Man?


........... and the Falkland Islands??

Jo xxx


----------



## baldilocks

jimenato said:


> Good thread. Credit to all for sensible and thought-provoking posts.:clap2:


This is what we try to do but, sometimes, serious irrelevance gets in the way.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> This is what we try to do but, sometimes, serious irrelevance gets in the way.



No harm done though. Most conversations have twists and turns


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> Well to be perfectly cynical, I don't think at this point in time Spain would gain anything from getting the sovereignty of Gibraltar. In fact it would go against Spains' best interests given the past and current climate of regional tensions.. the last thing Madrid needs right now is yet another bunch of national haters seeking independence. Chances are that it would turn violent towards the spaniards.
> 
> Just as well. In todays geopolitical scene the rock has lost its precious position, and it has no value in terms of industry, food production, agriculture, oil or anything that could contribute to the welfare of the nation. As soon as it would become spanish, its banking sector would go burst, for it would no longer be a finantial heaven. and the online gaming will move elsewhere where it can operate secretly. NOw I'm being really cynical, but It would be a burden (yet another) for the rest of the country to bear. It would be fair, it would temporally raise the morale of the spaniars and their sense of national pride, but it sooo wouldn't work.
> 
> The way I see it? it is that Gibraltar is currently a parasite to the Spanish economy, in terms of money laundering, petrol reselling, tax evaders etc, trafiking, smuggling, the list go on. THe rest of the international community turns a blind eye, Gibraltar denies it, and it is left to to the spaniards to pay the bill. ANd they cannot afford it much longer.
> 
> Problem is, Gibraltar, because of its size and lack of resorces, is not self sustainable, so it has to rely on dirty business dealings. THe only solution would be transparency between Gibraltar, Britain and Spain as well as cooperation in cracking down by all the authorities concerned, and that aint happening any time soon. After all, its Pirate's bay.


You know, a lot of what you posted just isn't true. 
Gibraltar is a valuable military asset to the UK and Nato. It does not rely on what you call 'dirty business dealings'. You may not approve of offshore banking, the gambling industry, their tax regime -I'm not so sure that I approve either - but these are not dirty business dealings, they are legitimate and recognised as such internationally. When it comes to really shady finance, take a look at Switzerland, Lichtenstein...
Gibraltar makes its money legitimately, albeit it via sectors of the economy you or I may not approve of..
As for smuggling etc....well, it takes two parties to smuggle. Spanish people like to take advantage of what they can get illicitly from Gibraltar. The authorities on both sides are cracking down on contraband as you will have read on other threads.
You are on very dodgy ground when you use illegal activity as a basis for argument. It is simply undeniable that Spain has an appalling record of political corruption and personal tax evasion. Of course no one country is 100% clean and Spain is making great efforts to clean up its image. 
And I'm not so sure that Spain really would benefit from reclaiming Gib, as you say. Many thousands of Spaniards cross the border each day to work on the Rock....most of them carrying cheap cigarettes and booze, probably!


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Well said Sonrisa.
> 
> There are an awful lot of people who would lose their only source of income if Gib became part of Spain. Regardless of who "owns" it, until prices are the same both sides of the border, smuggling will continue to be an attractive career option round here.
> 
> I´d like to see it blown out of the water, apes and all.


Well said if it were true...but it isn't, really.
An awful lot of Spaniards work in Gib. Prices will never be the same on both sides of the border and why should they be ? Are prices the same in France and Germany? In Austria and the Czech Republic? In the USA and Canada? The differentials may not be so great but the principle is the same...it's like being a little bit pregnant really. We live in a real world of commercial advantage and competition. That world has been around for several centuries and sure as hell aint going to change in our lifetimes.
Should Spain perhaps reduce its prices to Gib levels? Or do you think prices should be levelled up
The main beneficiary at this time is Spain.


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> You know, a lot of what you posted just isn't true.
> Gibraltar is a valuable military asset to the UK and Nato. It does not rely on what you call 'dirty business dealings'. You may not approve of offshore banking, the gambling industry, their tax regime -I'm not so sure that I approve either - but these are not dirty business dealings, they are legitimate and recognised as such internationally. When it comes to really shady finance, take a look at Switzerland, Lichtenstein...
> Gibraltar makes its money legitimately, albeit it via sectors of the economy you or I may not approve of..
> As for smuggling etc....well, it takes two parties to smuggle. Spanish people like to take advantage of what they can get illicitly from Gibraltar. The authorities on both sides are cracking down on contraband as you will have read on other threads.
> You are on very dodgy ground when you use illegal activity as a basis for argument. It is simply undeniable that Spain has an appalling record of political corruption and personal tax evasion. Of course no one country is 100% clean and Spain is making great efforts to clean up its image.
> And I'm not so sure that Spain really would benefit from reclaiming Gib, as you say. Many thousands of Spaniards cross the border each day to work on the Rock....most of them carrying cheap cigarettes and booze, probably!


No it doesn’t. It serves no longer its purpose as a military base. In fact military presence has been steadily decreasing over the years, which has forced Gibraltar to seek other sources of income. 

As of for its dirty business dealings, Its almost impossible to prove anything, true. It is common knowledge in Spain that Gibraltar is Spanish economy’s black hole, money laundering being the biggest problem that costs millions to the Government of Spain. It is difficult to prove, if not impossible, without the support of Gibraltar or british authorities. 

I am not talking about the smuggling of a few bottles of Gin or cigarrrets by some amateur day tripper. I am talking about organised crime with the blessing of the Gibraltarian authorities. A very classic example, in 2005 I think, three soldiers (Soldiers from the royal gibraltarian regiment) were caught trying to smuggle large quantities of hashees into Spain. 

I am with Alcalina, It would cause me great pleasure to see the rock sinking. (this is my Galician blood talking) . Just in the midst of the negotiations between England and Spain, the Prestige docked in Gibraltar. Then it was sent to Spain causing the biggest and most devastating ecological disaster in spanish history and probably in the world. Its damage can still be seen in the Galician coasts and it will probably last my lifetime. Most blame Gibraltar for doing this to us, making the boat leak on its short sail to Spanish coasts, but of course, it can not be proved whether it was broken in purpose or just a very unfortunate coincidence.

As for the Apes, they are notorious for robbing the visitors.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> No it doesn’t. It serves no longer its purpose as a military base. In fact military presence has been steadily decreasing over the years, which has forced Gibraltar to seek other sources of income.
> 
> As of for its dirty business dealings, Its almost impossible to prove anything, true. It is common knowledge in Spain that Gibraltar is Spanish economy’s black hole, money laundering being the biggest problem that costs millions to the Government of Spain. It is difficult to prove, if not impossible, without the support of Gibraltar or british authorities.
> 
> I am not talking about the smuggling of a few bottles of Gin or cigarrrets by some amateur day tripper. I am talking about organised crime with the blessing of the Gibraltarian authorities. A very classic example, in 2005 I think, three soldiers (Soldiers from the royal gibraltarian regiment) were caught trying to smuggle large quantities of hashees into Spain.
> 
> I am with Alcalina, It would cause me great pleasure to see the rock sinking. (this is my Galician blood talking) . Just in the midst of the negotiations between England and Spain, the Prestige docked in Gibraltar. Then it was sent to Spain causing the biggest and most devastating ecological disaster in spanish history and probably in the world. Its damage can still be seen in the Galician coasts and it will probably last my lifetime. Most blame Gibraltar for doing this to us, making the boat leak on its short sail to Spanish coasts, but of course, it can not be proved whether it was broken in purpose or just a very unfortunate coincidence.
> 
> As for the Apes, they are notorious for robbing the visitors.


You are wrong about the military value. The garrison has actually increased recently, not reduced. It is an army, navy and airforce base of value to the UK and NATO.
I notice you ignored my point about legitimate financial businesses and tax arrangements. You have also ignored my points about Spain benefiting from employment and smuggling opportunities.
As you say...nothing has been proved. And as for common knowledge...that's a joke. It may be common but it certainly isn't 'knowledge' i.e. fact. It's rumour, hearsay and gossip. If smuggling is a real problem for Spain...then sort it out yourselves! Why should we sort out your problems?
Three soldiers were caught smuggling dope....wow!! Crime of the century. Spain wasn't too keen to extradite real British criminals to the UK for trial until comparatively recently and you complain about three soldiers and a drug widely used in Spain???
The real cause for resentment is that Gibraltar is a reminder of Britain's past role as a great Imperial power. That's probably Alcalaina's chief objection to it.
(Mine is purely aesthetic).
There are some Brits who abhor our Imperial past and see no good at all as having been accomplished by it. I'm no fan of Empire but I don't consider all of our history in that respect to be pure evil.
Gibraltar is to Spain as an irritating itch in a place too embarassing to scratch. It's there, you don't like it but you can do nothing about it because it is and will remain British as that is what the residents want and Spain must learn to live with it! It's managed to do that for the past few centuries after all.


----------



## mrypg9

You know, we are forgetting the most important people in this: the ordinary people of Gibraltar. They are not all wealthy bankers. They have stated their wish to remain British and if we accept the democratic process we must respect their wish. Simple as that.
What have they done to deserve being blown up??? After all, some of them may even be socialists...


----------



## Alcalaina

gus-lopez said:


> What have the apes done to you ?


Scavengers who sit on their ugly backsides pickin' their noses all day at the taxpayer's expense ... never done a day's work in their lives some of 'em, turn yer back and they'll nick yer lunch!!


----------



## baldilocks

Alcalaina said:


> Scavengers who sit on their ugly backsides pickin' their noses all day at the taxpayer's expense ... never done a day's work in their lives some of 'em, turn yer back and they'll nick yer lunch!!


Sounds like politicians to me! PP ones at that!


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Scavengers who sit on their ugly backsides pickin' their noses all day at the taxpayer's expense ... never done a day's work in their lives some of 'em, turn yer back and they'll nick yer lunch!!


Are you sure you are referring to apes??
I think the description has wider application


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Sounds like politicians to me! PP ones at that!


You beat me to it!!!!


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> I am talking about organised crime with the blessing of the Gibraltarian authorities. A very classic example, in 2005 I think, three soldiers (Soldiers from the royal gibraltarian regiment) were caught trying to smuggle large quantities of hashees into Spain.
> 
> .


I've just read that again and I can't believe you meant it.
Three soldiers smuggling drugs INTO Spain???? When you can buy the drug of your choice from the Spanish-run beach bar near us...a thirty minute run from Gib? And all the other places you can buy any drug you like....in Spain??
And do you seriously think that the Gibraltarian authorities 'blessed' the smuggling attempt by these three idiots who obviously didn't know they were carrying coals to Newcastle? (Your English is excellent so you will know that expression) The hashish was probably cheaper in Spain. Not a very clever attempt at organised crime - they should have smuggled it *into *Gibraltar!
Most people I know who smoke grow their own or buy from local Spanish growers at very good prices.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> I've just read that again and I can't believe you meant it.
> Three soldiers smuggling drugs INTO Spain???? When you can buy the drug of your choice from the Spanish-run beach bar near us...a thirty minute run from Gib? And all the other places you can buy any drug you like....in Spain??
> And do you seriously think that the Gibraltarian authorities 'blessed' the smuggling attempt by these three idiots who obviously didn't know they were carrying coals to Newcastle? (Your English is excellent so you will know that expression) The hashish was probably cheaper in Spain. Not a very clever attempt at organised crime - they should have smuggled it *into *Gibraltar!
> Most people I know who smoke grow their own or buy from local Spanish growers at very good prices.


It's true. "In February 2004 three Gibraltarian soldiers from the Royal Gibraltar Regiment were charged with attempting to smuggle a large amount of hashish into Spain. ..." Europa World Year Book 2 - Google Books


----------



## VFR

An interesting article here that may add to the pot (excuse the pun)
The sun still shines in Europe’s money-laundering hub | Iberosphere

Still we need to bear in mind that the accuser is home to the biggest scammers in know history ie the Fed/Lehman's/Bush/Cheneye etc etc.


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> Having reread your post, I'd welcome amplification of your assertion that 'we have moved too far away from free speech in the UK ' and that consequently: 'the so-called terrorists have won'.
> 
> Three points on that;
> 1) I 've already said that 'free speech' per se doesn't exist. Are you suggesting that inciting the use of violence against people belonging to minority groups should be permitted?
> 2) I take issue with your phrase _'so-called terrorists'_. People who plant bombs on tubes and buses, attack airports and attempt to blow up airliners are REAL terrorists, surely?
> 3) How have terrorists 'won' if their freedom to incite hatred and violence is curtailed by law? Think of the Danish cartoon protest incident in London last year where those waving banners calling for a jihad against infidels were -rightly - prosecuted. How did that successsful prosecution aid and abet terrorists?
> And what is encompassed in your definition of 'liberty'?
> Do you mean selective freedoms enjoyed by few, such as the 'freedom to spend my money as I wish' which is often what the right mean by freedom.
> Or do you mean freedom from arbitrary oppression, hunger and general destitution?
> We need to get away from cliches and consider real events in the real world.


Of course I accept that free speech is not an absolute. It never has been. Race relations law restricted free speech and precedes 9/11. Enoch powell's rivers of blood speech would have got him into trouble if it had been 20 years later, but interestingly civil war and mass rioting did not follow that speech. 
It is the curbs on free speech and civil liberties that followed in reaction to the laughingly labelled “war on terror” that I find frightening. We have moved to effective imprisonment without trial, control orders that can deprive a person of basic freedoms with virtually no limit on when he be brought to trial. We have lost innocent until proven guilty. We have more surveillance cameras in the UK than in any other major country. Orwell’s Big Brother is here. In spades. It is a crime to protest about the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and the disastrous involvement in Afghanistan. We honour our war dead on Remembrance Day but not their victims. A Muslim burns poppies to remind us that we are the aggressor and invader in those areas and he is breaking the law because he is causing offence. We have lost the right to offend. Freedom of speech means giving people the right to disagree with us and if that offends then get over it. Inciting violence is not acceptable. Offending my feelings is acceptable. Free speech and civil liberties have been alarmingly sacrificed under Tony Bleurh. Ed Miliband himself acknowledged when he took the leadership of the Labour Party that the two biggest errors of the last Labour government were the invasion of Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties under Labour (but not while he was in the Cabinet).
“People who plant bombs on tubes and buses, attack airports and attempt to blow up airliners are REAL terrorists, surely?” Depends whose side they are on doesn’t it? If they are “the enemy”, they are terrorists. If it’s our guys bombing Iraqi cities and killing women and children, then they’re heroes. 
You ask about my idea of liberty. I found the best expression of my views in the greatest work of John Stuart Mill which was entitled “On Liberty”. It contained his rule of harm which says that (I paraphrase) the only justification for the state to intervene to restrict the freedom of the individual is to prevent harm to others. Burning poppies does no harm to others. Demonstrating against our military does no harm to others. The European Convention on Human Rights – which Britain signed before the EEC came into being – gives the individual the right to privacy. The proliferation of Big Brother cameras was a Labour government abuse of civil liberties.


----------



## nigele2

.........................
Dinnow you make some points I can appreciate but they get lost on me if you go in for personal attacks which seem in direct conflict with the ideal you appeared to be supporting.

Don't get me wrong I doubt mine and Baldilocks politics ever get close but I think he generally offers an honest opinion. 

Sadly as Mary points out much of the information offered here in worldly debates is inaccurate/hearsay/invented. That I think should be of greater concern.

In response to your comments I would point out that the guy who burnt the poppies I believe was fined £50. The Danish cartoonists were sentenced to death


----------



## dinnow

baldilocks said:


> The trouble is the so-called "right" to free speech is still there and exploited by minorities to preach hatred against those who are kind enough to accommodate them. For many if they used similar speech against the government and people in their own countries they would be stoned to death. Yet if a Brit attempts to use "free speech" and criticise the foregoing people they are up in arms - HYPOCRITES! Send them back to where they came from and let them see just how much welfare support they get there and just how welcome they and their free speech is there.


"Send them back to where they came from". Hounslow? Peckham?
Not all Britons are white, Anglo Saxon, Protestants. In case you haven't noticed, we are a multi-cultural society and have been for some time. To assume otherwise is racist.


----------



## baldilocks

dinnow said:


> "Send them back to where they came from". Hounslow? Peckham?
> Not all Britons are white, Anglo Saxon, Protestants. In case you haven't noticed, we are a multi-cultural society and have been for some time. To assume otherwise is racist.


The fact that they were born in UK is no excuse. Their attitudes have been created by the likes of others who weren't - for example the 7/7 bombers. They should all be sent back to where they or their families came from. If they are not satisfied with the country to which they or their families have come why did they come to UK in the first place - to get away from another regime that they did not agree with? It strikes me then, that the *real* problem could be those that are protesting not the people who they are protesting against!


----------



## nigele2

dinnow said:


> "Send them back to where they came from". Hounslow? Peckham?
> Not all Britons are white, Anglo Saxon, Protestants. In case you haven't noticed, we are a multi-cultural society and have been for some time. To assume otherwise is racist.


But there are dangerous extremists who are not Britons but guests. I know British muslims who are very embarrassed by the 'guests' who come to the UK to preach violence. However UK freedoms/laws mean we show a lot of tolerance as a state to these people. The reverse as Baldilocks correctly points out in many countries is not true. 

Pointing out that some muslims are born in Peckham is just avoiding the issue.


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> We all know that democracy is imperfect. When someone comes up with something better we'll consider replacing it. It certainly doesn't equate to rule by the ignorant - it simply means rule by the majority and that is an important distinction...unless of course you think that ignorance is transferrable and that all majorities are composed of the 'ignorant'.
> How would you define 'the most ignorant in society', I wonder.....In spite of proclaiming your commitment to freedom and democracy you seem to be expressing elitist and exclusive views. If I am better educated than you (which I may or may not be) does that mean my views count for more than yours?
> Some very undemocratic and illiberal views have been held by highly-educated people, you know.
> As for the 'lynch mob' analogy...it is superficially plausible but deeper thought shows it to be misleading. Democracy as practised in most societies amounts to more than collective hysteria whipped into an irrational frenzy leading to violent and savage acts.
> I've lived through many UK elections but have yet to see a candidate awarded top of the poll position because an angry crowd lynched his/her opponents.


There was an item on BBC news last night. It was a survey showing that more than 60% of those surveyed thought that the government was cutting too far too fast. What!! How many of those surveyed had the slightest idea of the economic arguments for and against? The survey was an exercise in futility. You could more simply have surveyed the editors of the tabloid press where most of the less well-educated get their political views from.
"It certainly doesn't equate to rule by the ignorant - it simply means rule by the majority". But the majority is poorly educated - ignorant in the literal sense of not having knowledge - which means that democracy equates to rule by the ignorant/poorly educated.
I accept that it's an elitist and excluding view and I am not proposing it. I have said that democracy is the best we have come up with. But it is not a perfect system. I do not know the answer and it is clear that I am not alone in this.


----------



## jojo

I think it matters not what colour or religion someone is, what matters is that they integrate into the society in which they live. The work towards making that society a pleasant and prosperous one! IMO, its those people who do nothing but claim benefits, scrounge and are in general anti social that are the problem - including those who go to live in England from other countries, but also those who are "home grown" ! Sadly tho its people who shout the "racist" card and who use the PC laws and the "so called" Freedom of Speech in the UK to slag the UK off and to exploit the radical views of their own religions. They dont have the same freedoms in their country of origin, so they go to the UK to do it - thats wrong, especially if they're taking benefits! 


Religion has a lot to answer for - No, I'm not being anti "god", but I'm very anti "manmade" and antiquated rules, laws, rituals, commandments, bibles/korans etc. They do nothing to create peace and harmony- It seems to me that there are people who hide and use religion because they simply like being violent and get their own way. Once upon a time when societies needed to be policed, religion was quite handy, but today there really is no place for any of them. 

The UK maybe trying to be "multi cultural", but some cultures dont mix too well - they may eventually, but they dont sit comfortably together yet! IMO

Jo xxx


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> I've lived through many UK elections but have yet to see a candidate awarded top of the poll position because an angry crowd lynched his/her opponents.


However in many other countries, that does happen, if not by lynch-mobs, by assassination! In the cases of countries from whom the disaffected "refugee" families whose case "dinnow" seems to espouse, similar distortions of the right of free speech and free elections, if not all out dictatorships by political and/or religious extremists are common.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Well said if it were true...but it isn't, really.
> An awful lot of Spaniards work in Gib. Prices will never be the same on both sides of the border and why should they be ? Are prices the same in France and Germany? In Austria and the Czech Republic? In the USA and Canada? The differentials may not be so great but the principle is the same...it's like being a little bit pregnant really. We live in a real world of commercial advantage and competition. That world has been around for several centuries and sure as hell aint going to change in our lifetimes.
> Should Spain perhaps reduce its prices to Gib levels? Or do you think prices should be levelled up
> The main beneficiary at this time is Spain.


Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit. Not to mention the queues and pollution caused by all those cars going in to get cheap petrol (and gin )

If Gib raised its duty so the prices were the same as in Spain, this wouldn´t happen. And if Gib then finds itself with more money than it needs, I´m sure the British government could find something to do with it.


----------



## nigele2

Alcalaina said:


> Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit. Not to mention the queues and pollution caused by all those cars going in to get cheap petrol (and gin )
> 
> If Gib raised its duty so the prices were the same as in Spain, this wouldn´t happen. And if Gib then finds itself with more money than it needs, I´m sure the British government could find something to do with it.


Would not the 4 billion become 3 billion because if it wasn't cheap then less gin would be drunk 

Then the spanish who sell gin would still hide 60% of the tax - now 1.2 billion.

And then the Spanish crooks would reduce it to 500000k 

And that would be paid as dole to the now out of work border guards 

So if you want your gin I'd keep quiet


----------



## baldilocks

Alcalaina said:


> Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit. Not to mention the queues and pollution caused by all those cars going in to get cheap petrol (and gin )
> 
> If Gib raised its duty so the prices were the same as in Spain, this wouldn´t happen. And if Gib then finds itself with more money than it needs, I´m sure the British government could find something to do with it.


But that cost of 4bn € is likely to reduce as it gets more difficult for people to find somewhere to smoke.


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit. Not to mention the queues and pollution caused by all those cars going in to get cheap petrol (and gin )
> 
> If Gib raised its duty so the prices were the same as in Spain, this wouldn´t happen. And if Gib then finds itself with more money than it needs, I´m sure the British government could find something to do with it.


But it wouldnt raise its duty to the same as Spain, it would raise it to English duty and then you'd have all the gibraltarians crossing the border to get their cheap Spanish goods!? - thats if anyone were to live there. Gibraltar is only popular cos its a tax haven!

jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit. Not to mention the queues and pollution caused by all those cars going in to get cheap petrol (and gin )
> 
> If Gib raised its duty so the prices were the same as in Spain, this wouldn´t happen. And if Gib then finds itself with more money than it needs, I´m sure the British government could find something to do with it.


I'm sure you're right. But since when has it been the responsibility of Gibraltar to deal with a problem that is essentially Spain's? Spanish crime is an issue for Spain to sort out. Stricter border controls, harsher punishments? 
Similarly, you can't expect Gibraltar to arrange its tax system to suit Spain. Would you expect the US to deal with Canada over its tax arrangements? Or Poland with Russia? These are internal matters to be arranged by national governments.
Putting the blame for these things onto Gibraltar may make some Spaniards feel better but it's an unreasonable attitude, especially considering the history of Spanish attitides to Gibraltar since Franco's time and beyond..
Facts are facts. Under a centuries-old internationally recognised agreement, Gibraltar was ceded to Great Britain. The inhabitants have expressed, by an overwhelming majority, their wish to remain British. There's no point bemoaning a situation that won't change for a very long time, if ever. Those Spaniards who don't like it and feel their national pride is injured must learn to live with it.
It's a horrible place. I strongly disapprove of all forms of gambling and detest people who use tax havens to -legitimately - avoid tax. But if the people of this ghastly place( which is improved only slightly by the availability of cheap gin ) wish to remain British, they're welcome to it.


----------



## nigele2

jojo said:


> But it wouldnt raise its duty to the same as Spain, it would raise it to English duty and then you'd have all the gibraltarians crossing the border to get their cheap Spanish goods!? - thats if anyone were to live there. Gibraltar is only popular cos its a tax haven!
> 
> jo xxx


But jo there are people who like the place. As a young'un I holidayed there twice. Had great times climbing the rock (including the Mediterranean steps) , feeding the apes, drinking with the military, sailing, haggling with eastern traders, exploring the history  I even was invited by some sailors to board Hermes (yup a few years back) and played football on the flight deck and lunch in the mess. Very happy memories 

It won't please everyone but it has its fans. It certainly has a lot more to offer than many burnt out spanish resorts that attract tourists.


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> But jo there are people who like the place. As a young'un I holidayed there twice. Had great times climbing the rock (including the Mediterranean steps) , feeding the apes, drinking with the military, sailing, haggling with eastern traders, exploring the history  I even was invited by some sailors to board Hermes (yup a few years back) and played football on the flight deck and lunch in the mess. Very happy memories
> 
> It won't please everyone but it has its fans. It certainly has a lot more to offer than many burnt out spanish resorts that attract tourists.


My loathing of the place is really only based on one visit to the town itself and a short visit to our bank.. All my other trips have been a quick in and out to Morrisons.
I chose a bad time - the week before Christmas. No-one had warned me about parking and I was manoevring a nearly-new Merc through narrow streets, cursing and perspiring, totally lost....All the shops were crowded, you couldn't move in the streets for people and when I did find a parking space it cost an arm and a leg.
I was looking forward to 'good' shops like Jaeger offering quality stuff at knock-down prices. Major disappointment.
So I am probably unreasonably biased.
But I won't be going anywhere other than Morrisons again.


----------



## dinnow

Alcalaina said:


> Smuggling cigarettes etc from Gib costs Spain an estimated 4 billion euros a year in tax revenue. That would make a big dent in our budget deficit.


Estimated by whom? Source?
And €4,000,000,000 would be small change in either the Spanish or UK budget deficit.


----------



## jojo

nigele2 said:


> But jo there are people who like the place. As a young'un I holidayed there twice. Had great times climbing the rock (including the Mediterranean steps) , feeding the apes, drinking with the military, sailing, haggling with eastern traders, exploring the history  I even was invited by some sailors to board Hermes (yup a few years back) and played football on the flight deck and lunch in the mess. Very happy memories
> 
> It won't please everyone but it has its fans. It certainly has a lot more to offer than many burnt out spanish resorts that attract tourists.



Actually I dont dislike Gib, I'd possibly think of moving there if it werent so expensive! but its not the largest place on the earth and I think a high proportion of residents are there for the work and tax breaks, which obviously wouldnt exist

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> Of course I accept that free speech is not an absolute. It never has been. Race relations law restricted free speech and precedes 9/11. Enoch powell's rivers of blood speech would have got him into trouble if it had been 20 years later, but interestingly civil war and mass rioting did not follow that speech.
> It is the curbs on free speech and civil liberties that followed in reaction to the laughingly labelled “war on terror” that I find frightening. We have moved to effective imprisonment without trial, control orders that can deprive a person of basic freedoms with virtually no limit on when he be brought to trial. We have lost innocent until proven guilty. We have more surveillance cameras in the UK than in any other major country. Orwell’s Big Brother is here. In spades. It is a crime to protest about the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and the disastrous involvement in Afghanistan. We honour our war dead on Remembrance Day but not their victims. A Muslim burns poppies to remind us that we are the aggressor and invader in those areas and he is breaking the law because he is causing offence. We have lost the right to offend. Freedom of speech means giving people the right to disagree with us and if that offends then get over it. Inciting violence is not acceptable. Offending my feelings is acceptable. Free speech and civil liberties have been alarmingly sacrificed under Tony Bleurh. Ed Miliband himself acknowledged when he took the leadership of the Labour Party that the two biggest errors of the last Labour government were the invasion of Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties under Labour (but not while he was in the Cabinet).
> “People who plant bombs on tubes and buses, attack airports and attempt to blow up airliners are REAL terrorists, surely?” Depends whose side they are on doesn’t it? If they are “the enemy”, they are terrorists. If it’s our guys bombing Iraqi cities and killing women and children, then they’re heroes.
> You ask about my idea of liberty. I found the best expression of my views in the greatest work of John Stuart Mill which was entitled “On Liberty”. It contained his rule of harm which says that (I paraphrase) the only justification for the state to intervene to restrict the freedom of the individual is to prevent harm to others. Burning poppies does no harm to others. Demonstrating against our military does no harm to others. The European Convention on Human Rights – which Britain signed before the EEC came into being – gives the individual the right to privacy. The proliferation of Big Brother cameras was a Labour government abuse of civil liberties.


Funny you should mention J.S. Mill. I have a copy of 'On Liberty' beside me as I post! It must be remembered that Mill wrote in the middle of the 19th century when the capacity of the individual or the state itself to harm others, directly or indirectly, was limited. Today that is no longer the case and Mill might feel it necessary to revise some of his writing. The motorcar, areoplane,computer and sound systems had not been heard of in the 1850s.
The law banning smoking in public places is a good example of this. Giving one individual the right to smoke in a bar could be said to take away the right of another not to be exposed to the risk of cancer. Mill accepted even then that some restrictions were necessary to protect the rights of society as a whole.
I agree with you about causing offence. As a gay woman I couldn't give a toss if someone says I am sinful or disgusting - I do care if some Islamist or any religious fanatic tells me I should be buried up to my neck and stoned to death.
Your equivocation of Muslim extremists and military action in Iraq is superficial. Our soldiers are acting on the instructions of a government. These instructions may be wrong and misguided as I believe them to be but they cannot be equated with politico-religious fanatics who are not supported by the majority of their own co-religionists. . What I do believe however is that the most basic and fundamental freedom of all is the right to be secure. All other freedoms are subsequent to this. 
If I cannot go about my lawful business without the risk that I may be harmed in any way by any aggressive action then I am not truly 'free'. It is the core duty of government to ensure the security of its citizens...wasn't it Hobbes who wrote that?
I dislike intrusive surveillance but my 'freedom' to be liberated from being watched by a camera is not as important to me as my freedom to arrive safely at my destination when I board a tube or airliner.
A couple of points: it is not illegal to protest peacefully against the wars in Iraq or Adfghanistan or any war...I have done so.
And weren't the poppy burners charged under Public Order Offences?
Some people remember ALL the dead on Remembrance Day and many other days of the year. We are not all exclusive in our remembering..


----------



## baldilocks

dinnow said:


> Estimated by whom? Source?
> And €4,000,000,000 would be small change in either the Spanish or UK budget deficit.


€4,000,000,000 is not 4 billion, unless you are a Yank, it is 4 millard . 4 billion is 4,000,000,000,000 but the ignorant Yanks call that a 'trillion'

But when a nation allows a person who can't spell (Webster) to write its dictionary... It is a well-known fact that the only reason he offered to write the dictionary of the American language was so that everybody would spell _his_ way, but since he could never remember which way he spelled a word, his spellings were inconsistent.


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> "Send them back to where they came from". Hounslow? Peckham?
> Not all Britons are white, Anglo Saxon, Protestants. In case you haven't noticed, we are a multi-cultural society and have been for some time. To assume otherwise is racist.


Many of the political Islamists who preach hate and jihad in the UK are here as asylum seekers from countries where their activities are banned and they face harsh sentences. They very often live off the UK taxpayer against whom they call for death and destruction. These people radicalise disaffected youth who go for jihad training in Pakistan. 
I accept our society is deeply flawed but even so do you really think what these people want to change it for is better?
I am against fundamentalisms and secular religions of all kinds. These people are true racists. Their creed is intolerance and violence.
Baldilocks is in no way a racist. We have disagreed on trivia but I suspect that his views are essentially very similar to mine...i.e. based on realism and a sense of fairness and proportion.
There is still a grounding of decency in the British people, whatever their skin colour, religion or origins.


----------



## Alcalaina

dinnow said:


> Estimated by whom? Source?
> And €4,000,000,000 would be small change in either the Spanish or UK budget deficit.


I read it in El Pais late last year, can't find the article now unfortunately, so can't check the number of zeros. The estimate was presumably made by the Hacienda. Given that the total savings from ZP's austerity measures were €15 bn, that €4 bn might have meant that old-age pensions wouldn't need to be frozen next year.

Spain has certainly tightened up the border controls significantly in the last couple of years. There is evidence that Gibraltarian tobacco wholesalers are benefiting just as much as the Spanish _matuteros_, and also that they are importing low quality "fake" cigarettes from China and passing them off as well-known brands.

Gibraltar Chronicle - The Independent Daily First Published 1801
EuropaSur - Los estanqueros denuncian que parte del tabaco de contrabando...


----------



## Alcalaina

baldilocks said:


> €4,000,000,000 is not 4 billion, unless you are a Yank, it is 4 millard . 4 billion is 4,000,000,000,000 but the ignorant Yanks call that a 'trillion'
> 
> But when a nation allows a person who can't spell (Webster) to write its dictionary... It is a well-known fact that the only reason he offered to write the dictionary of the American language was so that everybody would spell _his_ way, but since he could never remember which way he spelled a word, his spellings were inconsistent.


Baldilocks, I defend your right to free speech but if I were a citizen of the USA I would feel justified in accusing you of making a racist comment here!


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> Baldilocks, I defend your right to free speech but if I were a citizen of the USA I would feel justified in accusing you of making a racist comment here!



Is there no such thing then?? There are ignorant and intelligent "yanks" just as with any nationality. But yes we do have to remember that we are on an international forum

Anyway, lets not get too picky - I do sometimes think that people mistake racial awareness with racial hatred/discrimination. We need to learn how to accept and talk about peoples differences without it being called discrimination. On the one hand people like to be seen as different and their differences noted and respected. but on the other, it seems that comments pointing those differences out are considered offensive???

And another thing, using the abbreviated word "Pakistani" is considered derogatory, but using the word "Brit" isnt - why is that????????? And is "Yank" racist?? or am I straying wildly off topic ????


Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> Is there no such thing then?? There are ignorant and intelligent "yanks" just as with any nationality. But yes we do have to remember that we are on an international forum
> 
> Anyway, lets not get too picky - I do sometimes think that people mistake racial awareness with racial hatred/discrimination. We need to learn how to accept and talk about peoples differences without it being called discrimination. On the one hand people like to be seen as different and their differences noted and respected. but on the other, it seems that comments pointing those differences out are considered offensive???
> 
> And another thing, using the abbreviated word "Pakistani" is considered derogatory, but using the word "Brit" isnt - why is that????????? And is "Yank" racist?? or am I straying wildly off topic ????
> 
> 
> Jo xxx


Certainly off the topic of whether Spain is a democratic country, but it's an interesting point. Of course, we are all the same race - the human race, **** sapiens. Variations in skin colour is no more an indication of a different race than variations in hair colour. But the word "racist" has evolved to refer to our attitude towards people of different nationalities or faiths; a good example of the changing use of language.

We use language to express emotions, and we can easily tell if what we call people of different nationalities is meant to be insulting or just purely descriptive. The preceding adjective is a bit of a giveaway - "ignorant Yanks", "thieving Pakis", "whingeing Poms" ...


----------



## xabiaxica

jojo said:


> Is there no such thing then?? There are ignorant and intelligent "yanks" just as with any nationality. But yes we do have to remember that we are on an international forum
> 
> Anyway, lets not get too picky - I do sometimes think that people mistake racial awareness with racial hatred/discrimination. We need to learn how to accept and talk about peoples differences without it being called discrimination. On the one hand people like to be seen as different and their differences noted and respected. but on the other, it seems that comments pointing those differences out are considered offensive???
> 
> And another thing, using the abbreviated word "Pakistani" is considered derogatory, but using the word "Brit" isnt - why is that????????? And is "Yank" racist?? or am I straying wildly off topic ????
> 
> 
> Jo xxx



I don't think you're off topic - democracy/free speech/PC are all interlinked aren't they??

we have a restaurant here called ****** - & yes the sign does have the picture you would expect - dare I be non-PC & say 'a black man'?? (that's just what you'd say in Spanish, after all - un hombre *****)


I have heard (british) people say how dreadful it is to call a restaurant that - but of course the word _*****_ just means _black_ in Spanish


I think we run the risk of becoming too PC - but it isn't new - I remember at age 16 (not telling how very many years ago that was) working a saturday waitress job being told that I wasn't allowed to say_ black coffee _


----------



## jojo

(When my daughter was little, she went up to a black man once and asked him if he was made of chocolate!!) 

......... Er....... I'm not being racist, neither was my daughter, just racially aware!!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

The problem with the law in the UK is that imo it is weighted far too much towards the perception of the person who is the recipient of the alleged racial/homophobic/gender-related abuse and not the intention of the person who uttered the words in question.
So...if someone calls me a 'silly old ****' that is based for the purposes of the relevant legislation entirely on my feelings on receiving the remark. Now....my friends often greet me -affectionately- with such comments, either that or 'silly old tart!'. I greet them in similar terms...it's what we do in the UK. No offence intended, none taken. If every time a woman was called a 'silly cow' she took offence and invoked the relevant legislation our courts would be full and justice would grind to a halt. But in theory that could happen. Fortunately most people are more sensible and thick-skinned or retaliate in their own way.
I sat on Committees that helped draft the UK Equality Bill as it eventually became and that experience altered my views on many issues relating to equality.
I really think that the emphases are wrong and that more 'common sense' (a phrase I hate but can't think of a better one) and a sense of proportion is needed.
There are very few died-in-the-wool racists, homophobes, misogynists etc. in the UK and very few extremely thin-skinned people belonging to minority groups. Most of us can sort ourselves out and I don't think current laws are the best way to protect those who can't.


----------



## jimenato

David Gower once got into trouble for saying something like "Yes the Pakis really showed us that time didn't they?" in an interview. When I was in Johannesburg at a test match wearing an England hat I got called a Brit several times. One is offensive, the other not.:noidea:


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> David Gower once got into trouble for saying something like "Yes the Pakis really showed us that time didn't they?" in an interview. When I was in Johannesburg at a test match wearing an England hat I got called a Brit several times. One is offensive, the other not.:noidea:


Over the past few years I have often been greeted with 'Hello you old tart!', received comments such as ' You daft old bat!' and (very often) 'Put your glasses on, you short-sighted eejit!' or very similar.
Similarly I have used terms such as 'Silly old queen!' and 'Dozy poofter!' when joking with gay friends.
Each of these comments is theoretically in contravention of the Equality Bill and if I or any of my friends had been so minded could have led to a complaint to the police......


----------



## jojo

You often here young black kids referring to each other as n****s and its accepted and ok - White people arent allowed to use such a word, in fact these days its considered worse that the "C" word. I can see through history why its not good, altho it really is just an abbreviation of the latin word for black.

...... and then there are the blonde jokes! Are they a form of discrimination? Should I be offended when I hear dumb blonde jokes and comments??

Its all gone too far and as Mary says, it really is the intent behind the use of the word that matters, rather than the word itself. 

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> - White people arent allowed to use such a word, in fact these days its considered worse that the "C" word. Jo xxx


The best laugh I've had for years was when I heard James Naughtie get in a twist announcing 'Jeremy Hunt the Culture Secretary' on Radio 4.
At first I thought I'd not heard correctly...but Naughtie's valiant attempt to carry on reading the news through a fit of giggles was even funnier than the original Spoonerism.
For those who haven't heard it, it's on YouTube...worth checking out.


----------



## dinnow

baldilocks said:


> €4,000,000,000 is not 4 billion, unless you are a Yank, it is 4 millard . 4 billion is 4,000,000,000,000 but the ignorant Yanks call that a 'trillion'


?Source for your assertion?
I think not since 1974. There have always been long scale (million million, million billion) and short scale (thousand million, thousand billion). The UK abandoned the long scale in 1974 since when all government economic data has used the short scale. So really it's only the ignorant Brits who continue to cling to times past. 
Milliard - with an "i" - is used as 10*9 but only by a handful of mainly very aged people. Most now use the word "billion".


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> The best laugh I've had for years was when I heard James Naughtie get in a twist announcing 'Jeremy Hunt the Culture Secretary' on Radio 4.
> At first I thought I'd not heard correctly...but Naughtie's valiant attempt to carry on reading the news through a fit of giggles was even funnier than the original Spoonerism.
> For those who haven't heard it, it's on YouTube...worth checking out.


Didnt Jeremy Paxman do it too the other week when he was talking about the governments spending "cuts"??? Apparently, he didnt "bat an eyelid" lol!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> ?Source for your assertion?
> I think not since 1974. There have always been long scale (million million, million billion) and short scale (thousand million, thousand billion). The UK abandoned the long scale in 1974 since when all government economic data has used the short scale. So really it's only the ignorant Brits who continue to cling to times past.
> Milliard - with an "i" - is used as 10*9 but only by a handful of mainly very aged people. Most now use the word "billion".


As I have never had a bank balance involving these figures, this dispute leaves me cold


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> We use language to express emotions, and we can easily tell if what we call people of different nationalities is meant to be insulting or just purely descriptive. The preceding adjective is a bit of a giveaway - "ignorant Yanks", "thieving Pakis", "whingeing Poms" ...




But these are very mild insults and can also be factually accurate.


----------



## jojo

dinnow said:


> ?Source for your assertion?
> I think not since 1974. There have always been long scale (million million, million billion) and short scale (thousand million, thousand billion). The UK abandoned the long scale in 1974 since when all government economic data has used the short scale. So really it's only the ignorant Brits who continue to cling to times past.
> Milliard - with an "i" - is used as 10*9 but only by a handful of mainly very aged people. Most now use the word "billion".



...... (and Professor Brian Cox the other night on tv !)

Jo xxx


----------



## dinnow

Still on the subject of language, are we to assume that all heterosexuals are miserable? Why do homosexuals (Latin **** = male; not Greek **** = same) and lesbians have to hide behind the euphemism of "gay"? What's wrong with homosexual (Greek ****) and/or lesbian?


----------



## jojo

dinnow said:


> Still on the subject of language, are we to assume that all heterosexuals are miserable? Why do homosexuals (Latin **** = male; not Greek **** = same) and lesbians have to hide behind the euphemism of "gay"? What's wrong with homosexual (Greek ****) and/or lesbian?



Public opinion tends to create titles and names. Wasnt it Larry Grayson and his cathphrase "What a gay day?" that stopped homosexuals (I actually hate that word) from being called "queer" (not keen on that one either) - which was what it was known as in my parents day??! 

I think "gay" is great and so is "straight" for those who arent! both easy to say and arent unpleasant!

Jo xxx


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> But these are very mild insults and can also be factually accurate.


If you call a Pakistani convicted of theft a thieving paki - no problem. Statement of fact. Same as calling a Brit convicted of theft a thieving Brit - except you never hear the expression.
Where the racism comes in is when you extrapolate from one factual account to generalise about "thieving pakis".


----------



## jojo

dinnow said:


> If you call a Pakistani convicted of theft a thieving paki - no problem. Statement of fact. Same as calling a Brit convicted of theft a thieving Brit - except you never hear the expression.
> Where the racism comes in is when you extrapolate from one factual account to generalise that all pakis are thieving *******s.



But if you were to say "all PAKISTANIS are thieving *******s, then its not racism, its generalising?????? Its all stupid isnt it. Its all about intent and whether there is malice behind the comments!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> Still on the subject of language, are we to assume that all heterosexuals are miserable? Why do homosexuals (Latin **** = male; not Greek **** = same) and lesbians have to hide behind the euphemism of "gay"? What's wrong with homosexual (Greek ****) and/or lesbian?


The word 'gay' used to refer to homosexuals/lesbians dates back to the eighteenth century, perhaps even earlier. It was also used to refer to prostitutes or anyone with loose sexual morals.
You are misusing the word'euphemism'...also from Greek 'eu' meaning good.
A euphemism is a pleasant substitute for an unpleasant fact/situation etc.
You also use the word 'hide'.
No person I know sees their sexual orientation as something unpleasant or that needs to be hidden so these words could be said to be offensive as they imply that homosexuality is per se undesirable.
See how easy it is to be an unwitting cause of offence...
QED my earlier point


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> If you call a Pakistani convicted of theft a thieving paki - no problem. Statement of fact. Same as calling a Brit convicted of theft a thieving Brit - except you never hear the expression.
> Where the racism comes in is when you extrapolate from one factual account to generalise about "thieving pakis".


It's the term 'Paki' that is the problem for many, regardless of what adjectives you use to qualify it.


----------



## jimenato

jojo said:


> Public opinion tends to create titles and names. Wasnt it Larry Grayson and his cathphrase "What a gay day?" that stopped homosexuals (I actually hate that word) from being called "queer" (not keen on that one either) - which was what it was known as in my parents day??!
> 
> I think "gay" is great and so is "straight" for those who arent! both easy to say and arent unpleasant!
> 
> Jo xxx


"Queer" is apparently Boy George's word of choice. A gay barman friend of mine in Estepona preferred "Poof".


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> "Queer" is apparently Boy George's word of choice. A gay barman friend of mine in Estepona preferred "Poof".


I prefer 'Mary', speaking personally.....


----------



## xabiaxica

jimenato said:


> "Queer" is apparently Boy George's word of choice. A gay barman friend of mine in Estepona preferred "Poof".


isn't it funny how the usage of words changes?

my dd is off sick today - my dad asked if she was queer................


----------



## gus-lopez

dinnow said:


> ?Source for your assertion?
> I think not since 1974. There have always been long scale (million million, million billion) and short scale (thousand million, thousand billion). The UK abandoned the long scale in 1974 since when all government economic data has used the short scale. So really it's only the ignorant Brits who continue to cling to times past.
> Milliard - with an "i" - is used as 10*9 but only by a handful of mainly very aged people. Most now use the word "billion".


Unfortunately not around here & with the young Spanish. To them a billion is a million, million,million. I made the mistake of saying ' a billion' when meaning a thousand million which lead to a long discussion of 'what ' a billion was & now to avoid confusion we all say ' a thousand million '. So no it's not 'all ignorant aged brits'.


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> The word 'gay' used to refer to homosexuals/lesbians dates back to the eighteenth century, perhaps even earlier. It was also used to refer to prostitutes or anyone with loose sexual morals.
> You are misusing the word'euphemism'...also from Greek 'eu' meaning good.
> A euphemism is a pleasant substitute for an unpleasant fact/situation etc.
> You also use the word 'hide'.
> No person I know sees their sexual orientation as something unpleasant or that needs to be hidden so these words could be said to be offensive as they imply that homosexuality is per se undesirable.
> See how easy it is to be an unwitting cause of offence...
> QED my earlier point


Thanks for the history bit. Didn't know that. 
Plead not guilty to misusing euphemism. I'm not expressing my personal views on homosexuality. Just arguing that, for others, gay is good, homosexual/lesbian is bad. If not, why use it?
I didn't imply that homosexuality is undesirable. You inferred it maybe but the fault then is with you. It isn't desirable or undesirable. It just is. I remember an old Bob Hope joke when he said that, when homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in the fifties, he decided to emigrate as he had no objection to it being allowed but he wanted out before it became compulsory.
As for giving offense, you and I are agreed that in the ideal world that I thought we were discussing, the right to offend someone with your views was a civil liberty worth protecting provided no harm was done. Hurting someone's feelings shouldn't be a crime. I was taught sticks and stones more years ago than I care to remember. So if you're offended by my views (and I know you're not but just making a point) then that's your problem.


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> Thanks for the history bit. Didn't know that.
> Plead not guilty to misusing euphemism. I'm not expressing my personal views on homosexuality. Just arguing that, for others, gay is good, homosexual/lesbian is bad. If not, why use it?
> I didn't imply that homosexuality is undesirable. You inferred it maybe but the fault then is with you. It isn't desirable or undesirable. It just is. I remember an old Bob Hope joke when he said that, when homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in the fifties, he decided to emigrate as he had no objection to it being allowed but he wanted out before it became compulsory.
> As for giving offense, you and I are agreed that in the ideal world that I thought we were discussing, the right to offend someone with your views was a civil liberty worth protecting provided no harm was done. Hurting someone's feelings shouldn't be a crime. I was taught sticks and stones more years ago than I care to remember. So if you're offended by my views (and I know you're not but just making a point) then that's your problem.


No, I'm not offended!! But you do read things into my posts that aren't there - maybe it's my sloppy writing
No way did I mean to imply that you had negative views on homosexuality....it's obvious you are no way that kind of person.
I agree that it 'just is' and tbh for me it's no big deal. I was married, have a son and have been with my current partner for over thirty years....and we are really very 'normal, quite boring people, no different from anyone else. 
I was hoping you'd take issue with my views on fundamental freedoms as in one of my previous posts...I enjoy a robust discussion!


----------



## dinnow

mrypg9 said:


> I enjoy a robust discussion!


Can't say I'd noticed  :confused2:
I probably missed your earlier assault on my intellectually impregnable views. This is a brilliant and amazing thread. You go make a cup of tea and come back and you've got another five pages to read through :clap2:


----------



## mrypg9

dinnow said:


> Can't say I'd noticed  :confused2:
> I probably missed your earlier assault on my intellectually impregnable views. This is a brilliant and amazing thread. You go make a cup of tea and come back and you've got another five pages to read through :clap2:


It's because it's raining and I've just finished the book I was reading. 
I'm waiting for my Spanish neighbour to come for her 'English lesson' but I think the weather has put her off making the 50m journey....
Most of the time we sit and moan about the price of electricity, the bad manners of the young and so on and so on. Two old biddies whingeing...
But at least it gives me Spanish whingeing practice.......


----------



## baldilocks

Alcalaina said:


> Baldilocks, I defend your right to free speech but if I were a citizen of the USA I would feel justified in accusing you of making a racist comment here!


Are you claiming that there are only "intelligent" Yanks and no ignorant ones? What about the stupid morons who dreamed up the huge financial cock-up that has thrown the whole world into recession? If they stopped over-inflating things by using their own terminology then we would no be so bad off!


----------



## baldilocks

dinnow said:


> Still on the subject of language, are we to assume that all heterosexuals are miserable? Why do homosexuals (Latin **** = male; not Greek **** = same) and lesbians have to hide behind the euphemism of "gay"? What's wrong with homosexual (Greek ****) and/or lesbian?


If you are going to throw semantics at us Latin "****" = any primate of the hominid genus _****_ including modern man not 'male'; the Greek word you want is "homos" = same


----------



## Alcalaina

baldilocks said:


> Are you claiming that there are only "intelligent" Yanks and no ignorant ones?


Of course not. 

But when you said 



baldilocks said:


> 4 billion is 4,000,000,000,000 but the ignorant Yanks call that a 'trillion'


you weren't implying that only the ignorant ones call it a trillion, and the rest don't, were you?


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato...seems we were both right about Gibraltar...until this year it was 'in transition' to EU membership but is now completely 'merged' with the EU.
What will happen to the price of gin:confused2:


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> I've just read that again and I can't believe you meant it.
> Three soldiers smuggling drugs INTO Spain???? When you can buy the drug of your choice from the Spanish-run beach bar near us...a thirty minute run from Gib? And all the other places you can buy any drug you like....in Spain??
> And do you seriously think that the Gibraltarian authorities 'blessed' the smuggling attempt by these three idiots who obviously didn't know they were carrying coals to Newcastle? (Your English is excellent so you will know that expression) The hashish was probably cheaper in Spain. Not a very clever attempt at organised crime - they should have smuggled it *into *Gibraltar!
> Most people I know who smoke grow their own or buy from local Spanish growers at very good prices.


ok sorry, admitedly I lost interest in the discussion at some point and real life caught up with me. 
I am not particularly keen on reopening this ugly can of worms, but going thru the posts.. I am the one who can believe what are saying....?

Are you seriously suggesting that because an illegal drug is widely available and consumed , it is ok to smuggle large quantities into the country? 
So, since many people that I knew in the uk enjoyed the use of recreational drugs such as extasis and cocaine, and it was widely available, it would be acceptable to bring large quantities? Is it not illegal? 
THe point was trying to make I was that many drugs make it into Spain and Europe via Gibraltar. THis has been widely exposed in spanish press, but I dont' think it makes it into english press

I am happy to argue when there are good and valid poits to discuss, but this one was beyond absurdity.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> ok sorry, admitedly I lost interest in the discussion at some point and real life caught up with me.
> I am not particularly keen on reopening this ugly can of worms, but going thru the posts.. I am the one who can believe what are saying....?
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that because an illegal drug is widely available and consumed , it is ok to smuggle large quantities into the country?
> So, since many people that I knew in the uk enjoyed the use of recreational drugs such as extasis and cocaine, and it was widely available, it would be acceptable to bring large quantities? Is it not illegal?
> THe point was trying to make I was that many drugs make it into Spain and Europe via Gibraltar. THis has been widely exposed in spanish press, but I dont' think it makes it into english press
> 
> I am happy to argue when there are good and valid poits to discuss, but this one was beyond absurdity.


My point is simply that three daft soldiers don't constitute organised crime. You chose a rather weak example to make your point.
Personally, I believe all drugs should be decriminalised, as do many Chief Police Officers in the UK and elsewhere.
I note from the local press that Gibraltar is about to begin work on the new World Trade Centre. The new airport terminal will soon be open for use.
So...Spain should, frankly, forget about the hopeless aim of 'getting back' Gibraltar and concentrating on its economic problems, doing more to prevent widespread corruption in local government from all Parties and getting to grips with the black economy which seems to be a way of life for many Spaniards.
Of course there is crime...there always is across borders. Germany is pressing Holland to tighten up its soft approach to cannabis because so much is getting into Germany, France and Belgium where, stupidly, marijuana/cannabis is illegal. Cigarette smuggling is a big problem for the UK,from Spain, Belgium and elsewhere. As for the U.S./Mexican border.......
Gibraltar's economy is doing very nicely and certainly doesn't need drug smuggling for its prosperity. With Spain's current record of economic mayhem, God help Gibraltar if Spain got its hands on it.
As I said, if Spain has a problem with drug smuggling, Spain must solve it. You have enough layers of police from the Guardia (hopefully fully purged of its dubious past) to the very nice but slothful Policia Local we often see asleep in their cars on the campo or ogling women on the beach..
Forget 'big power' foreign policy wish-lists, just as the UK had to.
And we were an even bigger power for longer.


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> My point is simply that three daft soldiers don't constitute organised crime. You chose a rather weak example to make your point.
> Personally, I believe all drugs should be decriminalised, as do many Chief Police Officers in the UK and elsewhere.
> I note from the local press that Gibraltar is about to begin work on the new World Trade Centre. The new airport terminal will soon be open for use.
> So...Spain should, frankly, forget about the hopeless aim of 'getting back' Gibraltar and concentrating on its economic problems, doing more to prevent widespread corruption in local government from all Parties and getting to grips with the black economy which seems to be a way of life for many Spaniards.
> Of course there is crime...there always is across borders. Germany is pressing Holland to tighten up its soft approach to cannabis because so much is getting into Germany, France and Belgium where, stupidly, marijuana/cannabis is illegal. Cigarette smuggling is a big problem for the UK,from Spain, Belgium and elsewhere. As for the U.S./Mexican border.......
> Gibraltar's economy is doing very nicely and certainly doesn't need drug smuggling for its prosperity. With Spain's current record of economic mayhem, God help Gibraltar if Spain got its hands on it.
> As I said, if Spain has a problem with drug smuggling, Spain must solve it. You have enough layers of police from the Guardia (hopefully fully purged of its dubious past) to the very nice but slothful Policia Local we often see asleep in their cars on the campo or ogling women on the beach..
> Forget 'big power' foreign policy wish-lists, just as the UK had to.
> And we were an even bigger power for longer.


Ah yes, The airport which is built in spanish land stolen during the 19th century, and now they are building fancy buildings in stolen spanish water. 

Spanish accuse Gibraltar of building on 'stolen land' - Telegraph

It amazes me what drug money can buy. More surprising is that there are people out ther that will throw a load of BS in a ridiculous attempt to excuse it. Why would our econmic woes would be used as an excuse for illegal occupation is beyond me.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> Ah yes, The airport which is built in spanish land stolen during the 19th century, and now they are building fancy buildings in stolen spanish water.
> 
> Spanish accuse Gibraltar of building on 'stolen land' - Telegraph
> 
> It amazes me what drug money can buy. More surprising is that there are people out ther that will throw a load of BS in a ridiculous attempt to excuse it. Why would our econmic woes would be used as an excuse for illegal occupation is beyond me.


So a group of PP MPs have made this 'accusation'. That's all it is. An accusation. Brussels will deal with it. Or fight us for it...
Are you seriously suggesting that 'drug money' has been used to fund this project? That is a serious accusation and I'd like proof. As you know, Gibrakltar is doing well enough out of its legitimate (although in my view unsavoury) economic activities.
I read in the UK press that a high percentage of building projects in Andalucia are money-laundering projects. Flinging around allegations of bad practice is a zero-sum game. 
Forget about Gibraltar, get over it, however much it may annoy some Spaniards (although I guess most Spaniards don't give a toss).... Spain needs to concentrate on its domestic problems.
I'm beginning to think the PP is using the issue as a distraction from its lack of a viable economic plan to get Spain out of its current mess. Some people in the UK thought Mrs. Thatcher used the Falklands War as a similar distraction from economic problems at home.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> jimenato...seems we were both right about Gibraltar...until this year it was 'in transition' to EU membership but is now completely 'merged' with the EU.
> What will happen to the price of gin:confused2:


Still £3.50 for a litre of Rives in Morrisons this morning ...

(We've just done our biannual teabags & curry spices run. Gib does have its uses ... )


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Still £3.50 for a litre of Rives in Morrisons this morning ...
> 
> (We've just done our biannual teabags & curry spices run. Gib does have its uses ... )




Gin and Quorn, that's why we go there. In and out as quickly as possible. Sundays is a good day.
Slightly off-topic: we're thinking of taking Our Little Azor for a short break to Portugal. We would want to stay in a nice but 'local' B&B in a village with plenty of good walking in pleasant countryside. All dog-friendly, of course. 
Any suggestions gratefully received.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Gin and Quorn, that's why we go there. In and out as quickly as possible. Sundays is a good day.
> Slightly off-topic: we're thinking of taking Our Little Azor for a short break to Portugal. We would want to stay in a nice but 'local' B&B in a village with plenty of good walking in pleasant countryside. All dog-friendly, of course.
> Any suggestions gratefully received.


I haven't been but I've heard the Alentejo is very nice.
The Alentejo


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I haven't been but I've heard the Alentejo is very nice.
> The Alentejo


Thanks for that. Don't know why but I thought you posted about a break you had in Portugal recently. 
Must have been someone else...


----------



## Sonrisa

mrypg9 said:


> So a group of PP MPs have made this 'accusation'. That's all it is. An accusation. Brussels will deal with it. Or fight us for it...
> Are you seriously suggesting that 'drug money' has been used to fund this project? That is a serious accusation and I'd like proof. As you know, Gibrakltar is doing well enough out of its legitimate (although in my view unsavoury) economic activities.
> I read in the UK press that a high percentage of building projects in Andalucia are money-laundering projects. Flinging around allegations of bad practice is a zero-sum game.
> Forget about Gibraltar, get over it, however much it may annoy some Spaniards (although I guess most Spaniards don't give a toss).... Spain needs to concentrate on its domestic problems.
> I'm beginning to think the PP is using the issue as a distraction from its lack of a viable economic plan to get Spain out of its current mess. Some people in the UK thought Mrs. Thatcher used the Falklands War as a similar distraction from economic problems at home.[/QUO
> 
> Fine, you can have the last word. Whatever.


----------



## mrypg9

Sonrisa said:


> mrypg9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a group of PP MPs have made this 'accusation'. That's all it is. An accusation. Brussels will deal with it. Or fight us for it...
> Are you seriously suggesting that 'drug money' has been used to fund this project? That is a serious accusation and I'd like proof. As you know, Gibrakltar is doing well enough out of its legitimate (although in my view unsavoury) economic activities.
> I read in the UK press that a high percentage of building projects in Andalucia are money-laundering projects. Flinging around allegations of bad practice is a zero-sum game.
> Forget about Gibraltar, get over it, however much it may annoy some Spaniards (although I guess most Spaniards don't give a toss).... Spain needs to concentrate on its domestic problems.
> I'm beginning to think the PP is using the issue as a distraction from its lack of a viable economic plan to get Spain out of its current mess. Some people in the UK thought Mrs. Thatcher used the Falklands War as a similar distraction from economic problems at home.[/QUO
> 
> Fine, you can have the last word. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> In lieu of counter arguments, yes, I'll have the last word.
> Thanks
Click to expand...


----------

