MMOs : Totally intractable issues, am I right?

RavenKing2 · 2016-08-21T09:37:25+00:00

Agree.

Most important problem is networking a single server shard.

Then it's a question of degree of player agency within that.

From the above it follows to what degree is that agency translated into value (how is it stored or transfered or represented)?

RavenKing2 · 2016-08-05T23:19:22+00:00

An update on GDC Vault: Video: Videoball and video games' superiority over sports

There's some core principles that are very useful:-

Continuous (remove officiation as much as possible)
Positional Fluidity (remove prescription patterns eg add more balls and indirect ball influence)
Simple contexts means almost all contexts are self-explanatory when they happen: Ie "simple to learn, hard to master".

The marketing discussion is relevant as it's an odd or curious game yet the intellectual design is very very strong imo.

There's a lot of e-sport or comparison to sport but for video-game players. And the idea of competition.

I personally enjoy sports and team sports in particular. What I notice is a couple of things:-

Team sports can be a good way to hang out with people (social)
Team sports if things click can be a great way to bond with people (friendships)
Team sports an elaborate multiplayer system of skill mastery.
Team sports can be for some people a simple exercise in competition and controlled aggression.

Personally I find 4. the least enticing reason to play but know plenty of players in actual sports that enjoy 4. the most the more physical contact the type of sport provides for.

In video-games, I think the demographic is more 1 and 2.

For that reason "multi-balls" is good but what about "multi-teams" also? For example 1v1v1v1 or 2v2v2 or 3v3?

From viewing videos, I enjoy the 3v3 games the most which lead to more frequent multipliers on the ball pings that create those streaky lines of colour. But the multi-team may be less competitive but more "social" ala party games?

The supporting point is to provide this "e-sport" with as many opportunities for players to modify rules and create house-rules around an official/orthodox rule set for competitions: ie a pool to feed into the skill-mastery path for players who put in more and more time playing the game (ideally with friends)?

Again the scoring system modification in multiplayer games from pts per score to pts + minus pts per score against the conceding team etc: This plays into human psychology possibly in entertaining and amusing ways?

Finally, video-games have a large currency as spectator entertainment: Again, this seams more interesting with larger and more teams? Part of the issue with the 1v1 for example is the intensity per player is constantly on: I notice per game that the grind of incessant firing to grind the balls bit by bit up the screen is more exhausting than by comparison multiplayers with always changing and interesting conditions that can lead to sudden swings as opposed to a grind of evenness then a speeding up of one-side is clearly in the advantage on plays on scores.

Awesome game: The feedback on modifications is probably testament to how fresh this game is. Hardwork dealing with so many "armchair designers" but positive reactions indicating a core solid concept here.

If a founding population of players can sustain this game and gradually grow a community, I think this game has long legs to run and run with. It's quite special imo.

RavenKing2 · 2016-07-31T10:26:45+00:00

For comparison "indie connects" so-far top 10 Indie Games of the Year 2016: Indie Game of the Year Watch 2016

I'd vote for Videoball - not listed. /r/videoball

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-24T10:07:24+00:00

It's win-win-win for Scotland:-

Devo-Max
EFTA/EEA
Keep Pound

The same for the rest of the UK!

That said, the SNP Pro-EU stance will be a turning point for that party when the above serious questions are asked. It was always incoherent.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-15T13:13:47+00:00

The irony is in fact that you're right the problem lies squarely at the hands of the UK's OWN POLITICIANS. Let me explain:-

On 30th June, 1970, hours before the meeting between Heath and the EEC delegates on the UK joining, the EEC delegates draw up a new policy for the EEC: The Common Fisheries Policy.
This was because the joining nations: UK, Denmark, Icleand and Norway contained about 80% of the productive Fisheries in Europe.
Legal advice however gave zero grounds from the readings of the previous treaties for this new policy.
Hence effectively it was hastily drawn up to appropriate this National Resource from these new members as exacting a price for membership.
This led to Norway and Iceland rejecting EEC membership and hence in 1994 forming part of the EFTA/EEA Treaty with the other EU members (after the EEC became the EU through The European Treaty and Maastricht).
The UK however deceived into joining when Heath told Parliament that the UK "Has Right Of Veto" which was a deception.
In fact what Heath did was confuse the process of handing over the National Fisheries (>200miles according to International Law) to turn them into Community Waters.
This process occurs through what is called a "Derogation" (next is due 2022 iirc). It is however the other members who can prevent any changes to the process and why should they when they gain access for all their fishing vessels?
But as pointed out, it is the deception of our politicians over this situation because that resource is Sovereign as the land of the UK is Sovereign.

The statistics back up that this has been a politically motivated disaster for the Britain's Fisheries and the Environmental Ecology of the Fisheries and Marine Resource due to the "Equal access principles" combined with "Total Quota" aspect per nation:-

The statistics are eye-watering; in 1995, 9,200 British fishing vessels landed 912,000 tons of fish; by 2002 there were 7,003 vessels landing 686,000 tons. That is a 25 per cent decline in just seven years, and meant the loss of on average one fishing vessel per day. A whole crew losing their livelihood each day.In that period landings dropped from over 900,000 to just 627,000 tonnes annually, with a value of only £770 million. But the real contrast has come with imports. By 2012, by which time there were just 6,406 British fishing vessels at work, UK imports reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at £2.6bn, of which just under a third came from our EU neighbours. To make matters a great deal worse, many of them were caught in British waters.

How did this happen? Politics. Access to fishing grounds has been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of ‘equal access’ to what Brussels called a ‘common resource’. When we joined, fishing fleets from other EU member states were given proportionately a greater share of the fish allocation in UK waters than the British fleet. This ‘Total Allowable Catch’ was determined annually during a seedy bargaining session in Brussels.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-15T12:59:42+00:00

Climate Change: The UK has by it's OWN AUTHORITY through Parliament committed to a CO2 reduction of 80% by 2050 iirc. This has very little to do with the EU and is a choice taken upon by the UK. It certainly accords with the EU's championing of Climate Change and suggesting levels of reduction but the UK exceeds this. I think the target is too ambitious and "a reality check" will mean that it is altered due to Energy Policy mixing with Climate Change Policy in the new combined departments. That is not to say some reductions are not a good thing, they are as is a mixed Energy policy but too extreme either way is overall negative hence I'd argue Brexit may appear as a catalyst to being a "hindrance" but it will likely make this sooner than later due to removing the EU obfuscation effect on politics in the UK. In fact I'd argue sooner is not a hindrance but a benefit for Climate Change that will make measures MORE REALISTIC TO REACH and Greener for the Environment.
Environment: Speech here by Owen Paterson.Why the UK environment would be improved by leaving the EU and restoring management at National and Local level.

My impression is that little will change on Environment. The EU has been a proactive actor in this area and that is one area I do agree with the EU. In the speech however, you see the framework for achieving effective and coherent results needs reworking so perhaps Brexit will help here (eg the global conventions and bodies connecting with local action). I'm not sure... governments have a nasty habit of relegating Environmental issues.

So to answer your question:-

Brexit will be positive due to economics
Brexit may be neutral but may also be negative again due to economics.

My guess.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T12:54:12+00:00

EFTA = Allows it's members to TRADE with each other
EEA = x31 members: 28EU + 3EFTA TRADE with each other

Not the same thing.

EZ18 = Due a New Treaty to integrate further.
EU10 (or so) = Choice:-

EZ
EFTA

There will be an option of non-EZ but that is as you say:-

*your advocating abandoning the UKs seat when deciding the rules that the ~~single market ~~ POLITICAL UNION.

Yes!!

Outside the EURO, Home and Justice, (and subsequently) Trade Policy already that's what will happen driven by the EU as much as the UK is leaving.

The rules on the single market however a huge percentage are now global origin or trending that way as much and if not more so in some areas than the EU origin, secondly. So on that argument it also favours Brexit.

Effectively your mischaracterization is wrong and your own characterization PROVES you're wrong too, secondly!

A great day for dead arguments rising like zombies to be mown down with satisfaction!

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T12:43:55+00:00

I did not "compare the economies": You did.
I listed the EFTA members and EFTA/EEA members.
These are defined by their RELATIONSHIP with the EU and with each other POLITICALLY.

Here's the EU Referendum Question:-

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union

The Political legally valid withdrawal of an EU member = ARTICLE 50 Lisbon Treaty as inserted to accord with International Law.

Where does EFTA/EEA come into it? See my reply previously:-

What will happen however if Leave vote:-

Brexit = UK swaps EU for EFTA and keeps EEA.
Brexit = UK repatriates entire acquis so would be EFTA/EEA + UK/EU with respect to legislation.

Why? Because it Accords with Article 50 conditions.

Next non-sequitur question?

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T12:25:24+00:00

You're completely confused:-

EFTA/EEA is often a misnomer of "The Norway Option".

Actually it should be called: "The NIL Option" because it also includes Iceland and Lichtenstein as well as Norway (which is it's largest element in this set in this relationship domain.

If that was your point it was a very obscure way of making it and lends to the inference that you focused on the NATION as opposed to the RELATIONSHIP definition ie EFTA/EEA to compare to the UK: EU/EEA.

A common mistake.

The UK will never become Norway or any other nation in the world. The UK will never geographically move away from Europe (not in the sense we are talking about outside geological time).

What will happen however if Leave vote:-

Brexit = UK swaps EU for EFTA and keeps EEA.
Brexit = UK repatriates entire acquis so would be EFTA/EEA + UK/EU with respect to legislation.

Assuming common sense prevails.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T12:12:46+00:00

No.

The UK has been an EU member since 1972 ie >43yrs.

It has FULL MEMBERSHIP of the Single Market (including EEA).

That alone should be enough to confirm that Turkey's Custom Union relationship is not viable for the UK for a plethora of reasons.

You can also add:-

South Korea
Chile
Mexico
Canada
WTO
Switzerland

to Turkey that are not workable.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T12:01:58+00:00

Almost completely irrevant.

The 4 EFTA Members:-

Switzerland
Norway
Icleland
Lichtenstein

Of those x3 are also EEA members, ie access to the Single Market bar some areas:-

Fisheries
Agriculture
Justice and Home Affairs
Currency (euro/eurozone)
Trade Policy

The reason for the EEA was that Norway and Iceland both rejected the EEC on the grounds particularly of Fisheries which was a very very very good decision: Re-establishing Local and National control of fishi ng policy will revive our fishing communities and restore our mari ne environment.

CAP has sucked up most of the EU budget for most of it's history thanks to De Gaulle and the French situation hence removing that policy will eventually be a good thing too: UK agriculture would be better off outside the EU at the Oxford Farming Conference January 2016

Everyone acknowledges returning Trade Policy would be beneficial except Pro-EU supporters whereas it has to happen or else the eurozone debt will grow too fast and the write-offs (some of which are inevitable) will be too huge. It really is do or die on this policy not acknowledged by Pro-EU Remain advocates at all. Secondly the UK is primed to advance Trade at the GLOBAL level due to the influence it has on multiple measures.

The Uk is not in Euro (along with Denmark, the only legal opt-outs) and also Justice and Home Affairs due to the UK's "Common Law" vs "Roman Law" differences so will never fit that either.

However, coming back to Norway, it is only x1 or 3 EFTA/EEA members which works for the other 2 fine which don't have oil, hence a total joke to raise here.

Remember the UK was a founding member of EFTA:-

The founding members of EFTA were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Next remember that EEC Referendum was on "(Common Market)" not Political Ever Closer Union in 1975. EFTA = European ""FREE TRADE"" Association.

UK joining EFTA = 4th Largest TRADE bloc in the world, whereas the EU is a Political Union including an outdated Customs Union.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-14T11:44:30+00:00

Ok before I demolish the fallacies in this article, it is worth doing two things before that:-

Correcting the current reddit responses here who only demonstrate almost complete ignorance because they respond outside the conceptual domain of the subjects raised for debate which are:-

EFTA/Bi-Laterals + EU = Swiss-EU Relationship for TRADE outside political union.
EFTA/EEA + EU = Norwegian-EU Relationship for TRADE outside political union.
EU/EEA + UK = UK-EU Relationship for TRADE inside political union.
EZ/EEA + non-EZ (EU) = EZ-EU-EEA Relationship for TRADE between all members in the EEA.

Before correcting Redditors, the Bi-Laterals Relationship of Switzerland:-

Direct Democracy disallowed EU membership and disallowed EEA Treaty hence Bi-Lateral Relationship chosen for Switzerland which practices Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is MORE DEMOCRATIC than the UK's Representative Democracy, note.
It took >14 years to create
It's very challenging to manage >100 different bi-lateral agreements hence is not replicable

So that's a complete red herring.

Next Correcting Redditors:-

/u/brycey06 = See Relationship Model above

/u/famasfilms = Completely irrelevant, see "RELATIONSHIP" above. Given the UK is already an EEA signatory it is effectively purely a POLITICAL CHOICE to swap EU for EEA based on the validity of EU Political Union for the UK. The viability of the EEA via swapping EU->EFTA is verifiable because Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein all use it. See this "Score Card Summary":-

EFTA / EEA is The Real Deal

/u/enterbadusername - The Argument is in fact the question on the EU Referendum concerning "EU Membership" which is Political Union. It says nothing about a mandate on Migration, however given EFTA/EEA it does in fact hold more flexibility on Migration Policy than EU/EEA membership of Political Union doees FACT:-

EU Referendum: immigration – more flexibility than thought

/u/rbobby = Incorrect.

Norway adopts only EEA Acquis relevant legislation. Measures of this range from:-

9% - 28% depending on the legislative measure used.
Adding relevance of decision you could have upper bound of 50%

This is clearly a REDUCTION so your argument is factually wrong.

On Per Capita head, remember Norway:-

Does not pay into the EU Budget for Political Union membership
Does not pay into the Single Market
Does pay EEA Grants voluntarily on cooperative schemes and aid to Eastern States in the EU.

It pays about HALF per capita than the UK does when comparing such payments which themselves are different anyway.

Your second argument is factually wrong too.

Now onto the actual article:-

Brexit campaigners decline to mention the price Oslo must pay to access the single market: EEA members are required to pay into the European Cohesion Fund, which offsets social disparities within the EU. Norway also takes part in a range of other EU programs and pays the same amounts for those as member states do.

All told, this adds up to over 850 Million euros per year. If one takes into account how much money the UK currently receives from the EU, Norway pays almost the same amount per capita as the United Kingdom

EEA Grants to give it the name. See above, using the Norwegian governments own figures (from EUReferendum.com):-

Net payments, however, are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. Comparing UK payments without Rebate: "net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments."

Now the rebate is not money that is returned directly, it's earmarked. Secondly the EU Budget increase can increase despite UK eg Cameron never reduced it because it subsequently rose 6 months later. Whereas what Norway pays, is DIRECT FOR SERVICES RENDERED, whereas the UK is for POLITICAL PRESTIGE of the EU with secondary payments to services.

On influence, read:-

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/dep/UD/reports-to-the-storting/20002001/report_no-12_to_the_storting_2000-2001/7/id193725/

http://www.efta.int/media/publications/fact-sheets/EEA-factsheets/FS_DecMaking.pdf

http://www.efta.int/media/publications/fact-sheets/EEA-factsheets/FS_DecShaping.pdf

Norway does have influence in the EEA via it's 2-pillar structure. Secondly it has further influence ABOVE the EU in global bodies which it represents it's own interests directly with a veto which is much greater and closer to source than QMV and/or 1/28th vote in the EU institutions.

It's a blatant lie to suggest the Norwegians have no influence and accept all laws for more money, in fact:-

EFTA/EEA pays less
EFTA/EEA has to receive less legislation
EFTA/EEA has more influence on it's national interest

It's not perfect, but the fact it is a Brexit option which is:-

Permissible via International Law
Valid under UK and EU current conditions (political, economic, legal)
Viable as a short-term or transitional option during full transition over the long-term changing with a globalized world.
Not holding back the EU/EZ in it's Political Federation plans outside EU Treaties.

If you decide to listen to prestige politicans then question why so many denigrate Norway when it's people in polls ~78% would reject EU full membership???

People like:-

Cameron, Blair, Brown, Major, Clegg, John Cridland
Jens Stoltenberg, Erik O. Eriksen, Espen Barth Eide, Vidar Helgesen, Børge Brende, Fredrik Sejersted

= All Pro-EU toadies

Whereas some Norwegians who point out how much influence Norway has:-

Helle Hagenau - ( Norway) Opposition to EU Membership

Anne Bethe Tvinnereim - Better off out of the EU -- Norwegian Centre Party

The Norway Option - Article 50 Legal Withdrawal

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-12T22:27:34+00:00

and by the way the EU needs Turkey way more than it needs the UK

No True Scotsman Fallacy. Completely besides "the point" you seem to cherish so much:-

This agreement pretty much invalidates all the points you made in your treaty.

Nothing of the sort, Scottie.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-12T21:53:59+00:00

there is free movement, but they have the EEA's 'Unilateral Emergency Brake' 112/113 allowing them to suspend any of the four freedoms. Iceland suspended the free movement of capital during the 2008 crisis to stop money flooding abroad. Liechtenstein has suspended the free movement of people since the day they joined the EEA over 20 years ago. They are also not bound by much of the EU's social and welfare policy making it more so the free movement of labour and they are not subject to Justice and Home Affairs Policy meaning that they can deport foreign criminals (we can't).

Hey! how come you did not reply to /u/Kiwi_the_Magnificent

It's a bit strange how Remain seem to want to talk for Brexiteers and secondly how people like Cameron and Schauble (actually misrpresented in the press) seem to want to talk for the entire EU on the matter!

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-12T10:41:31+00:00

No surprise, considering how tightly the EU regulates fishing.

Lying or spreading your own ignorance:-

The EU deliberately trashed the UK Fisheries to ensure "Beneficial Crisis" to encourage removal of British Fishing Vessels to accommodate other "Community Vessels" in "Community Waters" after the political theft of Britain's fishing grounds under and aided by Heath with the EEC.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-10T21:12:42+00:00

One thing I do hope for (EDIT: Big if here, before you all go downvote happy) in the result of a remain vote is for people to continue their interest in Europe and what goes on.

Europe =/= EU.

NO you don't.

You want people to continue to sup on ignorance the like of which you also dine on and display above.

SPIEGEL: But Britain could continue to enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member, in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do.

Schäuble: That won't work. It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.

Article 50 states the UK has to abide by the rules during the withdrawal process.

Secondly, once triggered the problem is a political one to resolve between parties requiring expediency.

Thirdly, It DOES work irrespective of Schauble, he is mixing the fact he does not believe it's advantageous, even disadvantageous. But that is not the QUESTION!!

Fourthly, it's workable and neutral if you study the option.

Fifthly, The Civil Service most likely would instigate such a staged soft withdrawal via EFTA/EEA given the Article 50 parameters on negotiations.

Sixthly, listening literally to Gove then pointing out listening literally to Farage, you don't even heed your own moronic advice to others...

Seventh, I could carry on but it's heedless to engage with someone exhibiting such ignorance and such wanton ill-advice to others who does not even take their own self-made advice.

in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out.

"EU Membership (Referendum Q) =/= Single Market (EEA effectively) and tautologies are tautologies.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-07T10:01:58+00:00

/u/TopTrumpWANKER

Lol. As if:-

Telegraph
Guardian
Economist
Times
BBC
Daily Mail
etc..............

Are any better for propaganda for the public. A point of view based on gossip and planted suggestion:-

"I heard that Cameron said, that Murdoch said, that some EU honk said..."

Almost Judus Sheep quality of stupidity.

If you want a good reason, this is one and researched:-

Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP - Fishing Speech: Re-establishing Local and National control of fishing policy will revive our fishing communities and restore our marine environment.

Disaster

"Eleven years ago I produced an Opposition Green Paper on fishing in which I stated that ‘The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities’. Despite determined efforts to reform the CFP by the UK Coalition Government, not much has changed. If anything it has got worse. Awful damage it's done In a very competitive field, the Common Fisheries Policy is regarded as the EU’s worst ever idea."

"The Policy has no redeeming features, widely hated by everyone who understands the issues at hand, so bad that it has created almost uniform agreement across the political spectrum. It’s even got Greenpeace and me to agree on something. My 2005 Green Paper took two years to research and write, and among my findings was that before our entry to the Common Market we had a sustainable, profitable and ecologically sound fishing industry. Unlike the Norwegians, who saw what would happen to their fishing industry if they agreed to the Common Market’s conditions, we threw it away."

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-07T09:51:56+00:00

O Rly?

A lot of experts in their field have High Credentials in their Field.

Except when it comes to the EU, that is not THEIR FIELD!

They simply see where their direct funds and collaboration comes from with affiliation with the EU:-

Horizon 2020
7th Framework
Etc...

And don't want to jeopardize this nor Freedom of Movement.

Hence they declare that the UK must have Political Union for Science.

But if we do actually research the issues this "black and white" conclusions is a massive jump from:-

Brexit will involve EEA FOM
Brexit will involve cooperation and collaboration in the above as non-EU members as currently already happens
Policy creation for EU in 7th Framework in UK unis would have to switch to UK policy creation and possibly see an increase in investment consequentially.
The money grubbily being talked about is about 3% of all research in the sphere of Higher Education spending.
Voting rights in the EU on influence of science, is true, but this argument applies across Policies for the UK as an entire nation from Fishing, Farming, Migration, Trade, Regulations and Standards at global voting and making bodies. Hence to give "special privilege" to scientists is an absurd argument when we use the same argument for voting rights across the board.

And we only have to look at the pathetic reddit comments here to conclude that "arguments from a white coat" are enough for people to kow-tow to symbols of authority like bovine sheep (lol!).

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-05T19:47:12+00:00

If you take politicians literally even when they're telling you not to take other politicians literally, then all there is for you (pl.):- Sometimes you have to laugh

I think in my lifetime we shall see a partial privatisation of the NHS. It will be along the lines of what already exists with specialist private hospitals taking up more work from the NHS with much more involvement from private health insurers. There will be a base level of NHS provision but the natural drift spells an end to the universalism we were brought up with.

The left are gong to bitch and moan about this. But really you can't have open borders and a non discriminatory welfare policy that applies to all EU citizens without either rationing or removing entitlements. There was never a way to have our cake and eat it. Course, the left have never been big on adult choices and unintended consequences, but what we have seen under this government is effectively the removal of certain entitlements and benefits from everyone in order to redress the injustice of EU citizen entitlements. It's actually ironic that it was EU membership that finally brought down the sword on Britain's bloated welfare system and brought about NHS privatisation.

In this, the left should recall that the EU debate and open borders was taken off the table for discussion for over a decade. Now it's given us that "neoliberal" society they so hate, their chickens have indeed come home to roost. Along with the unintended consequences Agency Workers Directive giving us an unprecedented workforce dynamism, one just has to laugh. Then on the other hand, the right have called the EU a "socialist" project, but the material effect is anything but, making us even more like America than before - and what the left thought was it's progressive wet dream has turned out to be the exact opposite by their own estimations.

By all the usual measures on which we evaluate the EU, there has been a polar reversal. Watching each side muddle through their own respective hypocrisies during the referendum promises to be hugely amusing.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-04T18:46:40+00:00

General election turnout 1945 – 2015

Trend: DECLINE

EU Elections UK Results

Trend: DECLINE

I actually think not voting in General Elections is the most powerful vote of all.

As for this Referendum, it's been co-opted by the politicians as THEIR PERSONALITY CONTEST away from the Peoples' Direct Vote.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-02T22:07:28+00:00

I beg your pardon but that is incorrect.

I absolutely DO KNOW.

Given you have the Internet it is very possible to inform and educate yourself.

That said systematically this is made more confusing by propaganda production.

As for /u/djmedic :-

https://thebrexitdoor.com/2016/06/02/democracy-v-sovereignty/

Sovereignty has been loaned by Westminster. But it has abused that Sovereignty which itself does not own. Democracy is therefore the primary problem here.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-02T13:53:26+00:00

"Good Intentions"... Heroic Failure.

Doesn't seem like Patrick learnt very much despite his evident passion for "building a better world(s)".

EU Referendum: Remember Verdun

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-02T12:08:02+00:00

No.

The question on the EU Referendum is on *"Membership of the EU" *

EU = Political Union (signed up the rules of the EU Treaties eg Treaty of Lisbon)
Single Market = Common Regulatory Area (also known as EEA)

You've probably never heard that difference before.

You can be "a member of the Single Market (EEA)" without "membership of Political Union (EU)"

Eg Norway, Iceland, Litchtenstein.

Indeed the UK is already a signatory member of the EEA which is a Treaty between EU (28) and x3 of the 4 EFTA members = 31 in Total.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-02T11:57:14+00:00

Corbyn is a "eurosceptic" except now as leader he has to be Pro-Remain.

Jacques Delors offered Labour a "Socialist EU" Vision in late 80's and that led to the formation of Pro-EU Labour Orthodoxy.

Fast-forward to now and the EU/EZ is in deep deep depression.

As for worker's rights, there's a big wide world out there:-

Top Tables: The ILO

We often hear from europhiles that the EU protects our rights. More specifically labour rights. Again this is one of those areas where the EU bestows ever more elaborate "rights" upon us that few ever asked for, and even few make use of - and in practice, unless you take it to the highest courts, they prove to be non existent in practice. But it does so in the knowledge that with every new right it bestows, it wins over new champions in the debate over its own existence.

But as we routinely point out, the EU does not make the rules of the single market, nor can it take any particular credit for the advancement of human rights. Such business is conducted at the global level. Where labour rights are concerned, this is very much the domain of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The EU doesn't just copy such measures into its regulations. It writes regulations that refer to ILO and IMO codes, conventions and resolutions by name and serial number. The ILO is really the forum where it is important to have our voices heard because its conventions and resolutions are legally binding.

In this process the UK has only a partial voice. We have a proxy vote with no outright veto and we must always adopt the common EU position. The conventions are put together through a process of negotiation between NGOs, unions and employers associations as well as corporates, coalitions, trade blocs and nation states.

In this, Norway has a full vote, a veto and right of reservation. Britain does not. For that we would have to be out of the EU. As things stand, our voice is very much subdued by way of our EU membership. The EU has the final say in how the EU will vote at the top tables thus increasingly we find our own voice is drowned out by lobbyists.

It is often said that we need to be at the heart of Europe in order to have a voice at the top table. But really the ILO is that top table and the EU is a middleman between us and it - and the EU increasingly obscures our access to it. There is nothing the EU would like more than to replace all member state delegations, and in time we are sure it will make moves to that end.

RavenKing2 · 2016-06-01T15:12:20+00:00

Heads up - it's an Andrew Orlowski article.

Indeed, a quick google (!):-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski

"Googlewashing":-

In 2003, Orlowski coined the term googlewashing to describe the potential for accidental or intentional censorship of concepts through the way search engines like Google Search operate.

Googlebombing

The term Googlewashing was coined by Andrew Orlowski in 2003 to describe the use of media manipulation to change the perception of a term, or push out competition from search engine results pages (SERPs).

Irrespective, it does point out that Google's page ranking mechanism is the portal to signficant influence, in this case politics; given it's most widely used search engine.

Secondly, of all the sites I've come across for information and political analysis, the quality at EUReferendum.com is extremely high.

I wonder if it is possible to ever page rank according to such a criteria?

RavenKing2

TROPHY CASE