C parser ramblings, language design, etc

[Rod Pemberton]

You would think that C, being created long ago, would be very easy
to parse with truly simple techniques, but things like optional
braces, 'while' used as both 'while' and 'do-while', i.e., which
'while' goes with 'do' when nested, base types comprising multiple
words, e.g., "long long", implicit int's, no keyword for typedef
usage, conflict with implicit int's and typedef's, ... etc all
complicate very simple C parsers.

E.g., since braces are optional in C, there isn't much useful
information for parsing, from statements like this:

do while(x--); while(x--);

That's confusing for a human and a simple parser. It could be
recognized by both as either of these:

do { while(x--); } while(x--);
do {} while (x--); while(x--);

Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.

Technically, the second example needs a semicolon, but that
doesn't help any with properly parsing the braceless example.

'while' is overloaded or ambiguous. It means two different
things at different places, and somehow the parser or compiler
must distinquish and keep track of which 'while' goes with
which 'do'. Nesting can throw the dual-keyword do-while loop
tracking out of whack. Adding nested while just complicates
it further. You almost need a stack and a state-machine.

That would've been much simpler to parse and emit code for if a
different keyword was used at the bottom of the loop or if the
condition was placed at the top of the loop for a do-while.
I.e., this is much easier to parse, since the 'while' keyword
isn't overloaded and it's easier to match paired 'do' and 'end':

do end(x--); while(x--);
do while(x--); end(x--);

Now, you know that every end is at the same scope as the 'do'
and you're not going to have "spurious" 'end's' inbetween.

/* condition syntax at top of bottom test/exit loop */
do(x--); { while(x--); }

That's even simpler.

I think the goal for any language should not only be LALR(1)
but also be able to be compiled in a single-pass with no
backtracking and with exceptionally easy parsing. That's why
my language uses space delimited parsing, like Forth, with
character directed parsing. I.e., a character in front of
each keyword, operator, etc in the language, tells the parser
what is coming next.

E.g., the hello world program for my language:

^main
{
$"Hello_World!" ~puts
}

I.e., '^' for declaring a procedure, '~' for calling a
procedure, etc. The parser doesn't have to determine that
"main" is a procedure or an identifier or that it's being
declared here, or that "puts" is a procedure which is being
called, or that "Hello_World" is a string, etc. The character
directive tells it that. Save info. It's like a built-in
AST, somewhat. I also went to a little bit of extra work
to support curly braces without following that pattern, which
would've required something to follow a brace. Unfortunately,
I just realized that I should've provided for a C style
semicolon too ';' for multipled statements per block.

I also did some work on my larger C parser project. I merged
in a bunch of similar code from other projects which helped
to fill the program out somewhat more than it was. Now, it
emits nicely reformatted C, an AST as text, and it's emitting
some very rudimentary assembly code, but it has a long, ...
long way to go to properly compile C code. Fortunately,
I have a number of other simpler C projects.

I also recently made some great progress on my OS-like
environment for DOS that provides a console window for DOS.
It's coded for DJGPP (GCC) C and uses CWSDPMI features.
I now just need to find some use for it. At the moment it
doesn't provide any advantage over a standard DOS command
line, except I can watch PM interrupts, which are only called
by DJGPP apps, and install PM interrupts and keep them active.
So, no RM interrupts are being monitored at the moment. The
Windows 98/SE console windows was much faster than DOS. So,
improving speed is one potential option for a purpose.
Unfortunately, switching RM interrupts back to PM has overhead
which could reduce any real gains from 32-bit PM C code.
Unfortunately, CWSDPMI doesn't use v86, unless VCPI is
installed, which would've reflected all RM interrupts to PM.


Rod Pemberton


--
Just how many texting and calendar apps does humanity need?

[Alexei A. Frounze]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> You would think that C, being created long ago, would be very easy
> to parse with truly simple techniques, but things like optional
> braces, 'while' used as both 'while' and 'do-while',

Just as in your language, there are things that have multiple
meanings, each applicable in its own context. But there's no
ambiguity here as long as you maintain minimal state while
parsing. Your brain does that (maintaining state) too when
you listen to speech or read text and it does more complex
things.

> i.e., which
> 'while' goes with 'do' when nested,

I see no problem with that in terms of parsing. If you get do,
you then expect to get while. Just like with parens and braces/
brackets. There's an opening/leading one and a closing/trailing
one.

> base types comprising multiple
> words, e.g., "long long",

Irritating, but straightforward.

> implicit int's,

Ugly and ill-conceived, IMO.

> no keyword for typedef
> usage,

What kind of usage?

> conflict with implicit int's and typedef's, ... etc all
> complicate very simple C parsers.
>
> E.g., since braces are optional in C, there isn't much useful
> information for parsing, from statements like this:
>
> do while(x--); while(x--);
>
> That's confusing for a human and a simple parser.

That is a very confusing way of saying "loop forever". :)
The parser (and the human) need to maintain some rather small
state to parse this out.

> It could be
> recognized by both as either of these:
>
> do { while(x--); } while(x--);
> do {} while (x--); while(x--);
>
> Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
> but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
> You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.

State!

> Technically, the second example needs a semicolon, but that
> doesn't help any with properly parsing the braceless example.

I think you've got all the semicolons in the above that are
required, so, I'm not sure why "the second example needs a
semicolon".

> 'while' is overloaded or ambiguous.

Not entirely ambiguous. If you look at the language, many
things have dual and even triple(?) use. There are some
factors: how many special symbols you have on your computer
(we now have 80+-100+ keys on our PC keyboards, but that
wasn't something everyone always had, hence trigraphs and
digraphs in the language). One could reserve more keywords
and make source code bulkier and compiler a tad mode larger
and complex too. That, however, also restricts the programmer's
choice of identifier names. So, both special symbols and
words are used with some balance, which some may find just
right, while others may find subjectively unreadable or less
readable than in other languages.

> It means two different
> things at different places, and somehow the parser or compiler
> must distinquish and keep track of which 'while' goes with
> which 'do'. Nesting can throw the dual-keyword do-while loop
> tracking out of whack. Adding nested while just complicates
> it further. You almost need a stack and a state-machine.

You do. Yo do need a state machine and some kind of stack.
Unless you're into esoteric stuff like brainfuck, which has no
form of recursion or nestedness in its syntax, you want your
language to provide facilities for nested and recursive things.
Even your mother tongue has it, despite not being designed
by wise engineers (even if there were wise engineers behind
spoken languages, the overall degree of chaos in every single
one of them indicates that wisdom and order weren't quite there
all the time). Some ideas and algorithms are most naturally
expressed in terms of recursion or induction. That's why
you have it, it's handy at times.

> That would've been much simpler to parse and emit code for if a
> different keyword was used at the bottom of the loop or if the
> condition was placed at the top of the loop for a do-while.

You could indeed use some sort of do/repeat-while() and
do/repeat-until(). But in any case you still need to parse
everything in between. And you are still not free to grab the
first while/until you see and use it to close the loop. If you
support comments and strings or string literals, you still need
to parse while maintaining state.

// this while is part of a comment
"this while is part of a string"
// "this while is part of a comment"
"this // while is part of a string"

Or do you propose to do something radical with strings and
comments as well so as to eliminate stateful parsing of them
and of everything around?

> I.e., this is much easier to parse, since the 'while' keyword
> isn't overloaded and it's easier to match paired 'do' and 'end':
>
> do end(x--); while(x--);
> do while(x--); end(x--);
>
> Now, you know that every end is at the same scope as the 'do'
> and you're not going to have "spurious" 'end's' inbetween.

This while/do issue must be a huge first world problem or
something. :) It's a rambleful one for sure. :)

> /* condition syntax at top of bottom test/exit loop */
> do(x--); { while(x--); }
>
> That's even simpler.
>
> I think the goal for any language should not only be LALR(1)
> but also be able to be compiled in a single-pass with no
> backtracking and with exceptionally easy parsing.

Certain improvements can be made and irregularities rooted
out. However, recursion is common and it requires special
treatment. Even your arithmetic expressions hide recursion.

> That's why
> my language uses space delimited parsing, like Forth, with
> character directed parsing. I.e., a character in front of
> each keyword, operator, etc in the language, tells the parser
> what is coming next.
>
> E.g., the hello world program for my language:
>
> ^main
> {
> $"Hello_World!" ~puts
> }
>
> I.e., '^' for declaring a procedure, '~' for calling a
> procedure, etc. The parser doesn't have to determine that
> "main" is a procedure or an identifier or that it's being
> declared here, or that "puts" is a procedure which is being
> called, or that "Hello_World" is a string, etc. The character
> directive tells it that. Save info. It's like a built-in
> AST, somewhat. I also went to a little bit of extra work
> to support curly braces without following that pattern, which
> would've required something to follow a brace. Unfortunately,
> I just realized that I should've provided for a C style
> semicolon too ';' for multipled statements per block.

What you describe is a way to simplify the language for the
compiler/interpreter developer. It may not necessarily be
helpful for the user of the language. If it involves
unnecessary typing or typing of characters whose typing cost
is higher than that of special characters in other languages,
it's just asking the programmer to do more work, which the
machine can do for him. When computers were big, expensive,
slow, with small memories and limited I/O, adapting things
for the machine made a lot more sense than adapting things
for the user. These days it's mostly the other way around
as I see it.

Alex

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

>
> You would think that C, being created long ago, would be very easy
> to parse with truly simple techniques, but things like optional
> braces, 'while' used as both 'while' and 'do-while', i.e., which
> 'while' goes with 'do' when nested,

Those are easy for a compiler to distinguish. Will explain what I mean
below.

> base types comprising multiple
> words, e.g., "long long",

Not too hard to handle, I would have thought.

> implicit int's,

I am not sure about how hard this would be to handle. It may be similar
to your long long case: just remember what's already been declared and
react accordingly.

Isn't C's rule that declaration mimics use much more of a problem for
parsing declarations? You don't necessarily know the type when you see
the identifier and the type can be split between typedef and where the
typedef is used.

For example,

typedef int T[4];

T a[5];

The declaration combines the [4] and the [5] together.

> no keyword for typedef usage,

My guess is that the compiler has to see the typedef first and,
effectively, adds the typedef name to its list of type-declaring
keywords. So after

typedef <type> T

it then regards "T" as it would "int" so when it sees the T in something
like

static T x

it knows that T is a type name. Not too hard to parse.

> conflict with implicit int's and typedef's, ... etc all
> complicate very simple C parsers.
>
> E.g., since braces are optional in C, there isn't much useful
> information for parsing, from statements like this:
>
> do while(x--); while(x--);

That's a good one. I had to stare at it for a while to work it out so I
have to agree that it's not easy for a human to parse.

> That's confusing for a human and a simple parser. It could be
> recognized by both as either of these:
>
> do { while(x--); } while(x--);
> do {} while (x--); while(x--);
>
> Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
> but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
> You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.

This should be easy for a compiler, IMO, as long as the compiler is
properly written. I say that because a compiler will work forward a
symbol at a time. After

do

the compiler will expect a statement. Note, a statement, not a {compound
statement}. Only *after* the statement will it expect a while clause.
What the compiler should look for, then, is

DO statement WHILE '(' expression ')' ';'

(That is from the link I will place at the end.)

As long as it sees a recognisable *statement* it will accept it, even if
that statement is a while loop. Easy.

> Technically, the second example needs a semicolon, but that
> doesn't help any with properly parsing the braceless example.
>
> 'while' is overloaded or ambiguous. It means two different
> things at different places, and somehow the parser or compiler
> must distinquish and keep track of which 'while' goes with
> which 'do'. Nesting can throw the dual-keyword do-while loop
> tracking out of whack. Adding nested while just complicates
> it further. You almost need a stack and a state-machine.
>
> That would've been much simpler to parse and emit code for if a
> different keyword was used at the bottom of the loop or if the
> condition was placed at the top of the loop for a do-while.
> I.e., this is much easier to parse, since the 'while' keyword
> isn't overloaded and it's easier to match paired 'do' and 'end':
>
> do end(x--); while(x--);
> do while(x--); end(x--);
>
> Now, you know that every end is at the same scope as the 'do'
> and you're not going to have "spurious" 'end's' inbetween.
>
> /* condition syntax at top of bottom test/exit loop */
> do(x--); { while(x--); }
>
> That's even simpler.
>
> I think the goal for any language should not only be LALR(1)

AIUI a *grammar* can be LALR(1) but not a language. There are many
grammars which can describe a given language.

> but also be able to be compiled in a single-pass

I am not even sure what single-pass or multiple-pass means any more.
When the term was first devised, AIUI, compilers could not keep all of
the source code in memory at a time. Consequently they read the source
code twice, say. The first time they read the source code they built
data structures from it. The second time they combined the data
structures with the source in order to emit the output code.

Those days are long gone. Compilers these days tend to read the source
once and then make multiple "passes" over internal data structures.

I guess you mean to emit code as soon as you see each part of the
source. That can cannot be done unless you have all the info you need at
each point. That might require the programmer to declare elements in a
given order such as constants and types first before code.

> with no backtracking

I think backtracking can be avoided with predictive parsing; that's what
parse tables are built to do (not that using parse tables is mandatory
or even necessarily a good idea; there are other ways to parse without
such tables).

> and with exceptionally easy parsing. That's why
> my language

Your own language is of interest. AFAIK this is the first time you have
written any specifics about it. This may have been more appropriate for
comp.lang.misc, though, and even although some people read both groups
you may get some further comments and interest there.

> uses space delimited parsing, like Forth, with
> character directed parsing. I.e., a character in front of
> each keyword, operator, etc in the language, tells the parser
> what is coming next.

Are there enough symbols in ASCII to express all the different syntactic
elements that you want to distinguish...? If you use too many won't the
code look ugly?

> E.g., the hello world program for my language:
>
> ^main
> {
> $"Hello_World!" ~puts
> }
>
> I.e., '^' for declaring a procedure, '~' for calling a
> procedure, etc. The parser doesn't have to determine that
> "main" is a procedure or an identifier or that it's being
> declared here, or that "puts" is a procedure which is being
> called, or that "Hello_World" is a string, etc. The character
> directive tells it that. Save info. It's like a built-in
> AST, somewhat.

Agreed. Once someone understands the symbols you use the above code
looks easy to read.

> I also went to a little bit of extra work
> to support curly braces without following that pattern, which
> would've required something to follow a brace. Unfortunately,
> I just realized that I should've provided for a C style
> semicolon too ';' for multipled statements per block.
>
> I also did some work on my larger C parser project. I merged
> in a bunch of similar code from other projects which helped
> to fill the program out somewhat more than it was. Now, it
> emits nicely reformatted C, an AST as text, and it's emitting
> some very rudimentary assembly code, but it has a long, ...
> long way to go to properly compile C code. Fortunately,
> I have a number of other simpler C projects.

It sounds as though you are making progress on it. There is a useful
grammar in

http://www.lysator.liu.se/%28nobg%29/c/ANSI-C-grammar-y.html

If you closely follow something like that it should make your life a lot
easier. There won't be any problem with where labels can go, what
statements can appear where, when braces are needed etc.

James

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

...

> I also recently made some great progress on my OS-like
> environment for DOS that provides a console window for DOS.
> It's coded for DJGPP (GCC) C and uses CWSDPMI features.
> I now just need to find some use for it.

I am puzzled. Why did you write it if you didn't have a use for it?

> At the moment it
> doesn't provide any advantage over a standard DOS command
> line, except I can watch PM interrupts, which are only called
> by DJGPP apps, and install PM interrupts and keep them active.
> So, no RM interrupts are being monitored at the moment. The
> Windows 98/SE console windows was much faster than DOS. So,
> improving speed is one potential option for a purpose.

That sounds like a problem being found to fit a solution.

> Unfortunately, switching RM interrupts back to PM has overhead
> which could reduce any real gains from 32-bit PM C code.
> Unfortunately, CWSDPMI doesn't use v86, unless VCPI is
> installed, which would've reflected all RM interrupts to PM.

Perhaps you could add it or something like it to your own OS to give you
a shell window, unless your OS has that already.

BTW, can you execute apps in your console windows?

James

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:10:23 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze <alexf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> no keyword for typedef
>> usage,
>
> What kind of usage?

'union' and 'struct' keywords both declare the data type and declare
variables of said type. 'typedef' only declares the data type. So,
usage of a typedef without needing a keyword prior to it creates a
conflict between an identifier and typedef name in the grammar. This
also creates conflicts with implicit ints.

union abc{
...
}

union abc var0;


typedef int abc;

<here> abc var1;

There is no keyword at <here>, such as 'typedef'. That's the problem.
The grammar expects a keyword like 'union' or 'struct' there, but
there is nothing for a 'typedef'. This problem has to be solved by
some other method: expansion of 'abc' to 'int', symbol lookup tables,
state-machine to determine "missing" typedef, etc.

BTW, I've had this conversation with both you and James,
and multiple times with James going back *many* years both
here and comp.lang.misc: 2014, '13, '11, '8 ... There is
in-depth info, including links to discussions on the issue
by ANSI C X3J11 maintainers, in a couple of those threads.

>> 'while' is overloaded or ambiguous.
>
> Not entirely ambiguous. If you look at the language, many
> things have dual and even triple(?) use.

at least quadruple: 'static' keyword

>> It means two different
>> things at different places, and somehow the parser or compiler
>> must distinquish and keep track of which 'while' goes with
>> which 'do'. Nesting can throw the dual-keyword do-while loop
>> tracking out of whack. Adding nested while just complicates
>> it further. You almost need a stack and a state-machine.
>
> You do. Yo do need a state machine and some kind of stack.

I.e., it's not simple enough for such an old language.
Maybe, "trivial" is the word I'm looking for ...

>> That would've been much simpler to parse and emit code for if a
>> different keyword was used at the bottom of the loop or if the
>> condition was placed at the top of the loop for a do-while.
>
> You could indeed use some sort of do/repeat-while() and
> do/repeat-until(). But in any case you still need to parse
> everything in between. And you are still not free to grab the
> first while/until you see and use it to close the loop. If you
> support comments and strings or string literals, you still need
> to parse while maintaining state.

A simple counter can keep track of scope level. So, the next loop
ending keyword at the same scope level terminates the loop, if
the conflict between standalone 'while' and the 'while' of a do-while
didn't exist.

> // this while is part of a comment
> "this while is part of a string"
> // "this while is part of a comment"
> "this // while is part of a string"
>
> Or do you propose to do something radical with strings and
> comments as well so as to eliminate stateful parsing of them
> and of everything around?

An int flag for each (in comment, or in string) is sufficient.

[Alexei A. Frounze]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 1:41:13 AM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:10:23 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze <...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> >> no keyword for typedef
> >> usage,
> >
> > What kind of usage?
>
> 'union' and 'struct' keywords both declare the data type and declare
> variables of said type. 'typedef' only declares the data type. So,
> usage of a typedef without needing a keyword prior to it creates a
> conflict between an identifier and typedef name in the grammar. This
> also creates conflicts with implicit ints.
>
> union abc{
> ...
> }
>
> union abc var0;
>
>
> typedef int abc;
>
> <here> abc var1;
>
> There is no keyword at <here>, such as 'typedef'. That's the problem.
> The grammar expects a keyword like 'union' or 'struct' there, but
> there is nothing for a 'typedef'. This problem has to be solved by
> some other method: expansion of 'abc' to 'int', symbol lookup tables,
> state-machine to determine "missing" typedef, etc.

Right. This is a method to create custom types or aliases for types.
And the problem is there because syntactically there's no
difference between a type name and a variable/function name and
either can occur at the beginning of a block (more freedom in C99
and C++ with their allowing to declare things almost everywhere).
If declarations had been designed with explicit delimiters (I think
you'd like that), this problem would've been long solved, e.g.:

a, b, c : blah;

or preferably for the compiler writer:

blah : a, b, c;

You don't need to know what blah is to determine that it is a
type.

There's a similar problem with sizeof. sizeof blah is sizeof
of an expression. sizeof(blah) can be either that same thing
(because parens don't alter expressions contained in them and
only specify order) or sizeof of a type, depending on what's
declared most recently, type blah or variable blah.

You need to fix sizeof as well.

There's no real conflict with while in terms of C syntax/grammar.
There's no need to guess or try/check anything complicated.

> > // this while is part of a comment
> > "this while is part of a string"
> > // "this while is part of a comment"
> > "this // while is part of a string"
> >
> > Or do you propose to do something radical with strings and
> > comments as well so as to eliminate stateful parsing of them
> > and of everything around?
>
> An int flag for each (in comment, or in string) is sufficient.

I'm not sure I get the idea. What I was trying to say is that
it seemed to me that you wanted to quickly locate the closing
while of do, before even parsing the statement that must exist
between do and while. If that's what you wanted, then you would
likely have a problem with comments or strings, which too can
contain while. To solve that problem with comments and strings
you'd employ some stateful parsing in order to note where a
comment or a string begins and ends. But then how's that
different or why should that be different from parsing
do statement while? Now, if you didn't want to fast forward from
do to while, what is the fuss about? while can be that statement
and all is well, except it's unlikely someone would want to
write that or be happy to read that.

Alex

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:49:21 -0400, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
> news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

>> base types comprising multiple
>> words, e.g., "long long",
>
> Not too hard to handle, I would have thought.

That depends on the parser design. Most base types are a single word with
some qualifiers etc. But, both "long" and "long long" are base types.
"longlong" is not recognized, i.e., requiring whitespace in-between, without
regard for the length of or type of whitespace. You can end up with newlines
in-between. So, "long long" is fine for a "maximal munch" algorithm, but not
necessarily other parsers.

>> implicit int's,
>
> I am not sure about how hard this would be to handle. It may be similar
> to your long long case: just remember what's already been declared and
> react accordingly.

When typedef's were introduced, they created a conflict in the grammar.
The result was that typedef's were obsoleted from C. It's possible that
a non-grammar based parser may not have any issues.

> Isn't C's rule that declaration mimics use much more of a problem for
> parsing declarations? You don't necessarily know the type when you see
> the identifier and the type can be split between typedef and where the
> typedef is used.
>
> For example,
>
> typedef int T[4];
>
> T a[5];
>
> The declaration combines the [4] and the [5] together.
>
>> no keyword for typedef usage,
>
> My guess is that the compiler has to see the typedef first and,
> effectively, adds the typedef name to its list of type-declaring
> keywords. So after
>
> typedef <type> T
>
> it then regards "T" as it would "int" so when it sees the T in something
> like
>
> static T x
>
> it knows that T is a type name. Not too hard to parse.

See reply to Alexei.

Also, it requires symbol or lookup tables. For a lex and yacc style
parser, this creates problems because the lexer must communicate with
the parser, which they aren't designed to do.

>> conflict with implicit int's and typedef's, ... etc all
>> complicate very simple C parsers.
>>
>> E.g., since braces are optional in C, there isn't much useful
>> information for parsing, from statements like this:
>>
>> do while(x--); while(x--);
>
> That's a good one. I had to stare at it for a while to work it
> out so I have to agree that it's not easy for a human to parse.

:-)

Yeah, I had to look at it a few times even though I knew how I got
to it and what the correct interpretation was. If I saw that in
real code, I would pause for a moment. E.g., the do and first while
makes one think of an infinite for or while loop:

for(;;);

while(1);

do while(1); /* NOT a do-while infinite loop, incomplete */

do ; while(1); /* infinite loop, complete */

Is a space required before the semicolon after 'do' in the last
example? If not, then ...

do; while(1);

>> That's confusing for a human and a simple parser. It could be
>> recognized by both as either of these:
>>
>> do { while(x--); } while(x--);
>> do {} while (x--); while(x--);
>>
>> Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
>> but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
>> You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.
>
> This should be easy for a compiler, IMO, as long as the compiler is
> properly written. I say that because a compiler will work forward a
> symbol at a time.

Yes, 'long' then forward to another symbol 'long' ...

Where is the "long long"? ;-) I.e., the two 'longs' must be
combined in the AST, perhaps? This would've been easier to
parse with one keyword.

> After
>
> do
>
> the compiler will expect a statement. Note, a statement, not a {compound
> statement}. Only *after* the statement will it expect a while clause.
> What the compiler should look for, then, is
>
> DO statement WHILE '(' expression ')' ';'
>
> (That is from the link I will place at the end.)
>
> As long as it sees a recognisable *statement* it will accept it, even if
> that statement is a while loop. Easy.

That works for grammar based parsers. That make not work
for others which might detect a 'while' too early, without
an easy way to track scope level, such as braces for a compound
statement. They would need a method to track and pair do's
and while's correctly. Solutions like counters and flags
might not work, i.e., may need stack or state-machine.

>> and with exceptionally easy parsing. That's why
>> my language
>
> Your own language is of interest. AFAIK this is the first time you have
> written any specifics about it.

I've mentioned the techniques previously on c.l.m. I also recall posting
an assembly example that no one liked, probably a.l.a. It was RPN assembly
plus character directed parsing. I thought I posted a sample of the
higher-level language a while back, somewhere.

> This may have been more appropriate for
> comp.lang.misc, though, and even although some people read both groups
> you may get some further comments and interest there.

It's still ultra-primitive: if-else, loop, characters, strings, byte
integer, larger integer, Forth like functionality to access memory.
The interpreter version, instead of the compiled version, looks more
likely to be useful, at this point.

>> uses space delimited parsing, like Forth, with
>> character directed parsing. I.e., a character in front of
>> each keyword, operator, etc in the language, tells the parser
>> what is coming next.
>
> Are there enough symbols in ASCII to express all the different
> syntactic elements that you want to distinguish...?

That's an issue, but I haven't used too many so far.
I use this technique for a number of related projects.

The high-level language only uses fifteen. The interpreter
uses the same fifteen. The general x86 assembler uses thirteen.
It emits hex, not binary. The hex to binary app uses seventeen.
Another assembler only for the high-level language uses two.
It's a minimal assembler used specifically during development
with the high-level language until the general x86 assembler
becomes more complete ... or not.

> If you use too many won't the code look ugly?

Yes, that's an issue ... I changed a few around already.
They need to be both easily remembered and not too awkward to
view. I tried to use ones familiar to me from other languages,
where possible. If the language set becomes too large, then
this will become a problem, i.e., using a wrong char.

Obviously, this would be less noticeable for intermediate
stages of compiling, i.e., unseen assembly or for code
backends or even for CLIs with a small command set.

>> I also did some work on my larger C parser project.
>

> It sounds as though you are making progress on it. There is a useful
> grammar in
>

> [link]

>
> If you closely follow something like that it should make your life
> a lot easier. There won't be any problem with where labels can go,
> what statements can appear where, when braces are needed etc.

I have that grammar, and a version I updated. This doesn't follow
a grammar. It's more of a state-machine, based upon a few switch()
statements and numerous flags, perhaps more like two actually.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 10:38:18 -0400, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
> news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

>> I also recently made some great progress on my OS-like
>> environment for DOS that provides a console window for DOS.
>> It's coded for DJGPP (GCC) C and uses CWSDPMI features.
>> I now just need to find some use for it.
>
> I am puzzled. Why did you write it if you didn't have
> a use for it?

LOL. LOL.

I'm at a slight loss to explain that rationally ...

Um, it just sort of came to me in a flash, that I could do so,
and so I did. If I don't do things when they come to me, the
idea or concept never gets done. I didn't want to "lose" it,
or be aware of it on my "to do" list but not find time to
implement or create it.

I was thinking about my OS, also about Windows 98/SE console, about
v86 mode monitors, whether I should code a monitor, and also about
the original purpose of my OS, when I realized that, after learning
some "secret" things about DJGPP, I knew enough that could put together
a console like DJGPP app. So, I coded up the base app one afternoon,
then worked on implementing a number of other things, then ran into
a serious problem, and so I let it sit around for a year. A year later,
I started tweaking, updating, re-organizing, and optimizing the code.
I was wanting to work on other projects, as I had ideas in mind for
them, but kept being drawn back to this one. Then, I realized that
the problem I had wasn't a problem at all, just a simple mistake on
my part and some needed and undocumented DJGPP info. So, I fixed that
and determined the undocumented info too. Technically, it's a console
window, but it's almost like an OS that runs on top of DOS, except
it's not an OS yet because it hasn't added anything or improved
anything as compared to DOS itself, but it's the base code for an
OS on DOS. It'll work well with DJGPP apps, possibly other DPMI
apps for DOS, but will need lots of work to improve regular DOS apps
which don't use DPMI. The "cool" part is the interrupts can be
coded in pure C. No special assembly wrappers are required, because
I figured out some undocumented DJGPP stuff. ISTM, that this was
left out intentionally ... So, the C library handles the interrupt
wrappers.

>> At the moment it
>> doesn't provide any advantage over a standard DOS command
>> line, except I can watch PM interrupts, which are only called
>> by DJGPP apps, and install PM interrupts and keep them active.
>> So, no RM interrupts are being monitored at the moment. The
>> Windows 98/SE console windows was much faster than DOS. So,
>> improving speed is one potential option for a purpose.
>
> That sounds like a problem being found to fit a solution.

Well, DOS is slow, and Windows 98/SE is not widely available
anymore, but has an excellent console window which was quick.
So, I'm not sure what else to do with it. It could be the
foundation for a game, but what game needs the DOS CLI?
Perhaps, a DOS GUI? That's another OS-like app ...

> Perhaps you could add it or something like it to your own OS
> to give you a shell window, unless your OS has that already.

It's not a full shell or command interpreter. DOS does all the
shell or command work, except for an internal implementation of
the DOS PROMPT command which was needed to correctly display a
PROMPT. This heavily uses DJGPP's C library, specific CWSDPMI
DPMI host features, and uses DOS itself.

> BTW, can you execute apps in your console windows?

Yes, but not because of my code. It uses DJGPP's system() to
execute .exe files, .com files, raw DJGPP COFF, etc detected
as being apps or executable by a DJGPP function. IIRC, there
was an issue with DOS .bat files though.

There was a very good DOS command interpreter posted to Ibiblio
(formerly Simtel) for FreeDOS by Allen Cheung of Centroid Corp
which compiles with DJGPP for DOS.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:37:49 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze <alexf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, if you didn't want to fast forward from
> do to while, what is the fuss about?

The 'while' as a statement is seen prior to the 'while'
which goes with the 'do'. A simple parser/compiler has
no way to determine which is which without braces for
a compound statement. I.e., it can't determine what
is or isn't a statement, just what are keywords and
other language elements. Analysis of the AST or a
grammar-based parser or some other solution would be
required to eliminate the 'while' as a statement as being
the 'while' paired with 'do'. I.e., C is too complicated
for simple parsing and code generation from the language.

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

news:op.x4we36pfyfako5@localhost...

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:37:49 -0400, Alexei A. Frounze
> <alexf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now, if you didn't want to fast forward from
>> do to while, what is the fuss about?
>
> The 'while' as a statement is seen prior to the 'while'
> which goes with the 'do'. A simple parser/compiler has
> no way to determine which is which without braces for
> a compound statement.

Yes, it can do this simply. I thought I already answered that.

> I.e., it can't determine what
> is or isn't a statement, just what are keywords and
> other language elements. Analysis of the AST or a
> grammar-based parser or some other solution would be
> required to eliminate the 'while' as a statement as being
> the 'while' paired with 'do'. I.e., C is too complicated
> for simple parsing and code generation from the language.

C is quite complicated to parse but not for the reasons you mention,
IMO.

James

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

news:op.x4wcoua0yfako5@localhost...

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:49:21 -0400, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
>> news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

...

>>> do while(x--); while(x--);

...

>>> That's confusing for a human and a simple parser. It could be
>>> recognized by both as either of these:
>>>
>>> do { while(x--); } while(x--);
>>> do {} while (x--); while(x--);
>>>
>>> Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
>>> but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
>>> You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.
>>
>> This should be easy for a compiler, IMO, as long as the compiler is
>> properly written. I say that because a compiler will work forward a
>> symbol at a time.
>
> Yes, 'long' then forward to another symbol 'long' ...
>
> Where is the "long long"? ;-) I.e., the two 'longs' must be
> combined in the AST, perhaps? This would've been easier to
> parse with one keyword.

A number of C types can be expressed by multiple keywords:

signed char
unsigned long
long double

And those can have qualifiers such as const and static and auto etc.
That's just something the compiler has to live with.

>> After
>>
>> do
>>
>> the compiler will expect a statement. Note, a statement, not a
>> {compound
>> statement}. Only *after* the statement will it expect a while clause.
>> What the compiler should look for, then, is
>>
>> DO statement WHILE '(' expression ')' ';'
>>
>> (That is from the link I will place at the end.)
>>
>> As long as it sees a recognisable *statement* it will accept it, even
>> if
>> that statement is a while loop. Easy.
>
> That works for grammar based parsers. That make not work
> for others which might detect a 'while' too early, without
> an easy way to track scope level, such as braces for a compound
> statement. They would need a method to track and pair do's
> and while's correctly. Solutions like counters and flags
> might not work, i.e., may need stack or state-machine.

There are areas where parsing C is difficult but this isn't one of them.
Consider a typical simple hand-written parser which includes the
following code.

if (token == DO) {
skip(); /* Skip the DO keyword */
statement_parse(); /* Parse the statement following DO */
if (token != WHILE) { /* Check for WHILE keyword */
.... exception handling code ....
} else {
skip(); /* Skip the WHILE keyword */
require(LPAREN);
expression_parse();
require(RPAREN);
etc.

In case it's not obvious the check (token != WHILE) on the fourth line
only takes place *after* statement_parse() returns. As such it would
find the *second* "while" in your example. The first "while" validly
begins a statement so it would be recognised in statement_parse() and
your example would parse properly and all without any special effort on
the part of the parser writer. I cannot understand why you think that is
hard to parse. You have mentioned a simple parser a few times. If you
still think there's a problem perhaps you can say what you mean by a
simple parser and why would it not parse the example as naturally as the
code above.

James

[Alexei A. Frounze]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:02:08 AM UTC-7, James Harris wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

> news:op.x4wcoua0yfako5@localhost...
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:49:21 -0400, James Harris

> > <...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Rod Pemberton" <...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

And that's precisely what I do in Smaller C.
I have ParseStatement() that parses statements as defined in the
language standard. When ParseStatement() sees do, it calls itself
recursively and parses whatever the next statement there is,
including a while statement. Upon returning from this recursive
call, it just parses the trailing while for this do. I see no
problem here whatsoever. I don't understand why Rod can't handle
recursion here in the same fashion. If he doesn't want explicit
recursion, he can always use a stack data structure instead of
recursive calls on the CPU stack.

Alex

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:02:06 -0400, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
> news:op.x4wcoua0yfako5@localhost...
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:49:21 -0400, James Harris
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
>>> news:op.x4tmp0ssyfako5@localhost...

...

> I cannot understand why you think that is hard to parse.

Well, not all parsers work that way ... That's the point.
How do you parse C with a simple parser? That's not simple
enough, and it requires a certain type of design, i.e.,
grammar based and probably recursive descent, and uses
look-ahead.

So, your code example follows a grammar based design and looks
ahead by calling statement_parse() upon finding "token == DO".
Don't look ahead. So, if you can't check for "token == WHILE"
or "token != WHILE" in the "token == DO" section, and you can't
call statement_parse() there, what do you do for while, when
you reach the "token == WHILE" section? How do you determine
what type the 'while' is when you see 'while' or how do you
identify enough information prior to that point to know which
'while' it is at that point?

Think about single-pass where something is emitted immediately for each
'while' and only one token is known at a time. Also, you can't parse
ahead or look ahead as you're doing by calling statement_parse(), since
the code has already been parsed and stored as an AST of tokens, without
that being done. You're just emitting code for each token in the AST.
You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So, when you come across
a 'while', how do you know what type of while and whether it's part of
a do-while or not? Assume this is a single-go, single-pass of the AST.
All you have are the prior 'do', any braces, 'while', and semicolons,
and/or the presence or absence of each thereof, to key off of, in order
to determine the type of 'while' each 'while' is.

[Alexei A. Frounze]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 5:30:36 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:02:06 -0400, James Harris <...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Rod Pemberton" <...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

> > news:op.x4wcoua0yfako5@localhost...
> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:49:21 -0400, James Harris

> >> <...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Rod Pemberton" <...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

Then, maybe they should if you want them to be able to perform
equally well as in being able to parse the same code
unambiguously?

> How do you parse C with a simple parser? That's not simple
> enough, and it requires a certain type of design, i.e.,
> grammar based and probably recursive descent, and uses
> look-ahead.
>
> So, your code example follows a grammar based design and looks
> ahead by calling statement_parse() upon finding "token == DO".
> Don't look ahead.

Who looks ahead? Does consuming a token from the input stream
count as looking ahead? James is describing the same kind of
implementation as in Smaller C. There's no look ahead. You can
consume a token from the input stream of tokens and that's the
only thing you can look at until you consume another token.
There's no GetMe2ndFromCurrentToken() or anything like that.
However, it is virtually impossible to parse C code without
somehow storing/caching some tokens internally or altering
compiler state based on the tokens seen so far. I do not
consider that look ahead. That's more of look behind. But
for the sake of argument you can of course say that one
is just a time-shifted version of another. :) Are you trying
to say that?

> So, if you can't check for "token == WHILE"
> or "token != WHILE" in the "token == DO" section, and you can't
> call statement_parse() there, what do you do for while, when
> you reach the "token == WHILE" section?

Why can't you? You have to parse nested/recursive code. The
parser must be able to do that by itself being recursive in one
sense or another. It must maintain some state, which will not be
static but grow with every level of nesting. If you're trying to
avoid any form of recursion in the parser, you won't get far.
It's much like trying to parse HTML with regular expressions
alone.
Here's a good write-up with links:
http://blog.codinghorror.com/parsing-html-the-cthulhu-way/
IOW, if you're trying to avoid recursion, maybe you need
an almost non-recursive language instead of C and it would be
just fine? Like assembly or primitive dialects of BASIC?

> How do you determine
> what type the 'while' is when you see 'while' or how do you
> identify enough information prior to that point to know which
> 'while' it is at that point?
>
> Think about single-pass where something is emitted immediately for each
> 'while' and only one token is known at a time. Also, you can't parse
> ahead or look ahead as you're doing by calling statement_parse(), since
> the code has already been parsed and stored as an AST of tokens, without
> that being done. You're just emitting code for each token in the AST.
> You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So, when you come across
> a 'while', how do you know what type of while and whether it's part of
> a do-while or not? Assume this is a single-go, single-pass of the AST.
> All you have are the prior 'do', any braces, 'while', and semicolons,
> and/or the presence or absence of each thereof, to key off of, in order
> to determine the type of 'while' each 'while' is.

You maintain state (whose size isn't fixed), AST or not, and consult it.
You can't do it any other way with C.

Alex

[Alexei A. Frounze]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:37:50 AM UTC-7, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
...

> Right. This is a method to create custom types or aliases for types.
> And the problem is there because syntactically there's no
> difference between a type name and a variable/function name and
> either can occur at the beginning of a block (more freedom in C99
> and C++ with their allowing to declare things almost everywhere).
> If declarations had been designed with explicit delimiters (I think
> you'd like that), this problem would've been long solved, e.g.:
>
> a, b, c : blah;
>
> or preferably for the compiler writer:
>
> blah : a, b, c;
>
> You don't need to know what blah is to determine that it is a
> type.

The latter form would need to be disambiguated from labels,
however.

It could be done as easily and as ugly as in DOS batch files,
just put the colon before the label name:

rem blah blah blah
goto label
rem blah blah blah
:label

Alex

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

news:op.x4xfpfabyfako5@localhost...

That's about as simple as I imagine a parser could be and still parse C.
What parsing mechanism did you have in mind that's simpler? Detail,
please, as mentioned below.

> So, your code example follows a grammar based design and looks
> ahead by calling statement_parse() upon finding "token == DO".

No, the code shown doesn't look ahead at all. It just processes one
token at a time.

> Don't look ahead. So, if you can't check for "token == WHILE"
> or "token != WHILE" in the "token == DO" section, and you can't
> call statement_parse() there, what do you do for while, when
> you reach the "token == WHILE" section? How do you determine
> what type the 'while' is when you see 'while' or how do you
> identify enough information prior to that point to know which
> 'while' it is at that point?

After DO, C expects a statement. The language definition explains that.
So the parser has to look for a statement at that point.

Ah, perhaps you are thinking that the parser's logic should go

if symbol is FOR
handle for loop
else if symbol is SWITCH
handle switch construct
else if symbol is WHILE
parser is confused not knowing which WHILE it is

Is that what you have in mind? I have never seen a parser work that way.
I don't think it is feasible because elements of C, like other
languages, are context-sensitve. To make a simple example you similarly
cannot say

else if symbol is RIGHT_BRACE
parser is confused not knowing which LEFT_BRACE it pairs with

Parser's don't work that way, AFAIK, and I cannot see that they could.
They know the *context* and so can match closing tokens with the opening
ones.

Maybe that's not what you have in mind. If not could you show some
pseudocode to explain because I cannot see what you think is a problem.

> Think about single-pass where something is emitted immediately for
> each
> 'while' and only one token is known at a time.

I don't know much about single-pass compiling. Again, psome seudocode
(sic) would help to explain.

> Also, you can't parse
> ahead or look ahead as you're doing by calling statement_parse(),
> since
> the code has already been parsed and stored as an AST of tokens,
> without
> that being done.

Um, statement_parse() doesn't look ahead. It just processes the next
part of the source. When it reaches the end of a statement it returns.
That's all.

> You're just emitting code for each token in the AST.

No, the tokens in my example are not from the AST. They are what the
lexer reads from the source.

> You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So, when you come across
> a 'while', how do you know what type of while and whether it's part of
> a do-while or not?

OK, I can think of a simple answer to that direct question:

A: If the WHILE is at the beginning of a statement it's a while loop.
Whereas if the WHILE comes after DO and a <statement> then it's the end
of a DO loop.

That's really the nub of it. *Where* the WHILE appears is the key but I
would stress that the code does *not* read the WHILE and wonder which
type it is. Rather, it knows where it is in a construct and looks for
specific tokens which are valid at that point.

> Assume this is a single-go, single-pass of the AST.

I didn't even posit an AST. The parse code was to process the source.

> All you have are the prior 'do', any braces, 'while', and semicolons,
> and/or the presence or absence of each thereof, to key off of, in
> order
> to determine the type of 'while' each 'while' is.

I am sure from past experience you won't be satisfied with the above.
:-( As I say, though, perhaps if you could explain more what you are
thinking of....

James

[Rod Pemberton]

Fine.

Your code proceeds to look at the next token, which may be a WHILE
token, while in the code construct for handling the DO token. What
if you can't proceed to the next token once a DO is found? You can
only look at DO. You can't parse a statement next. You must wait
for WHILE and then determine how it fits.

> After DO, C expects a statement. The language definition
> explains that. So the parser has to look for a statement
> at that point.
>
> Ah, perhaps you are thinking that the parser's logic should go
>
> if symbol is FOR
> handle for loop
> else if symbol is SWITCH
> handle switch construct
> else if symbol is WHILE
> parser is confused not knowing which WHILE it is
>
> Is that what you have in mind? I have never seen a parser
> work that way.

The logic is vastly different, but that's close enough
to the issue.

> I don't think it is feasible because elements of C, like other
> languages, are context-sensitve. To make a simple example you
> similarly cannot say
>
> else if symbol is RIGHT_BRACE
> parser is confused not knowing which LEFT_BRACE it pairs with

You don't need to know which brace goes with which brace as
long as all braces are properly paired. An up/down counter
can keep track of scope level and provide a count of missing
braces.

> Parser's don't work that way, AFAIK, and I cannot see that
> they could. They know the *context* and so can match closing
> tokens with the opening ones.

The goal is to determine the context from syntax as described.

> Maybe that's not what you have in mind. If not could you show some
> pseudocode to explain because I cannot see what you think is a problem.

I was hoping to use logic states, flags, rejection etc, to keep
track of where the 'statement' for the DO-WHILE is so that
intermediate WHILEs, those within the 'statement' can be rejected.
I believe this is only needed for the situtations without the
braces. There is very little syntax or presence/absence info to
key off of for an example like the one I posted:

do while(x++); while(x++);
___-----------____________

E.g., look at logic pulse above. Set a flag at start of
<statement>, and disable at the end. With braces present,
this can be done easily by detecting the presence of the
braces.

I.e., there is minimal information context at that point:
1) keyword do
2) keyword "other", i.e., first "while" here
3) whitespace
4) absence of braces prior to while
5) semicolon

So, in this case, the best I can figure is that I need
to detect the absence of the brace at a keyword after DO
but other than DO, then set a flag, disable at the
semicolon, and use a counter. If the counter is non-zero,
and a WHILE is found, and that WHILE is not in the rejected
region, i.e., the innermost braceless <statement>, then
the WHILE is part of a DO-WHILE.

... do do while(x++); while(x++); while(x++);
__________-----------___________________________
0 1 2 (rejected) 2 1 0

I haven't worked through this for other cases. I'm
just presenting this as an example of a possible way
to solve this. I don't believe this is needed for
when the braces are present.

>> You're just emitting code for each token in the AST.
>
> No, the tokens in my example are not from the AST.
> They are what the lexer reads from the source.

That sentence was part of me telling you about what to
do to mimic my situation. It was not describing my
understanding of your situation.

>> You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So, when you come across
>> a 'while', how do you know what type of while and whether it's part of
>> a do-while or not?
>
> OK, I can think of a simple answer to that direct question:
>
> A: If the WHILE is at the beginning of a statement it's a while loop.
> Whereas if the WHILE comes after DO and a <statement> then it's the end
> of a DO loop.

Yes, that's true, but not the issue at hand.

> That's really the nub of it.

That's the "nub of it" for parsers designed the way you presented.

It's not the "nub of it" for the parser in question. The parser in
question has no ability to distinquish a WHILE in a <statement> from
the WHILE which comes after DO and a <statement>. It knows where
each while is, each do, but has no ability to link them. I.e.,
within the statement, if there is a WHILE, it needs an ability to
differentiate that while from the WHILE which is to come later and
goes with a DO. This parser needs to determine this purely from
the textual syntax, which is difficult to do without braces and
with overloaded uses of WHILE.

> *Where* the WHILE appears is the key but I would stress that the
> code does *not* read the WHILE and wonder which type it is. Rather,
> it knows where it is in a construct and looks for specific tokens
> which are valid at that point.

Ok... Think about construct-less parser. It doesn't know
where the constructs are and need to determine whether the next
WHILE found is within the <statement> of a DO-WHILE, the start
of a WHILE loop, or the end of a DO-WHILE, and which WHILE if
many are nested. This needs to be done without setting up a large
amount of tracking, stacks, binary trees, etc. You only have the
whitespace, keywords, and absence of braces etc that I mentioned
above to determine this. You can't check for a <statement> after
DO, but you need to identify and store some info in order to reject
any WHILE's found in the <statement> as being a match to the DO.

>> Assume this is a single-go, single-pass of the AST.
>
> I didn't even posit an AST. The parse code was to process the source.

Again, I was describing my situation.

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message

news:op.x499nwp5yfako5@localhost...

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:29:16 -0400, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
>> news:op.x4xfpfabyfako5@localhost...

...

>> That's about as simple as I imagine a parser could be and still parse
>> C.
>> What parsing mechanism did you have in mind that's simpler? Detail,
>> please, as mentioned below.
>>
>>> So, your code example follows a grammar based design and looks
>>> ahead by calling statement_parse() upon finding "token == DO".
>>
>> No, the code shown doesn't look ahead at all. It just processes one
>> token at a time.
>
> Fine.
>
> Your code proceeds to look at the next token, which may be a WHILE
> token, while in the code construct for handling the DO token. What
> if you can't proceed to the next token once a DO is found? You can
> only look at DO. You can't parse a statement next. You must wait
> for WHILE and then determine how it fits.

I have been trying to get my head round what you are trying to do - or,
more accurately, how you are trying to do it. I think I am getting
closer to understanding what you have in mind. I am not sure of all the
details, though. For example, when you see a WHILE token what other info
do you have available that you can look at?

Specifically, when you see WHILE are you thinking to scan
forwards/backwards for nearby tokens in the stream of tokens that
represents the source code?

You mentioned an AST earlier but IIUC from what you said below you are
not thinking of reading the WHILE token from a tree of some sort and
then looking for adjacent tree nodes to tell you what the context is.

...

>> Ah, perhaps you are thinking that the parser's logic should go
>>
>> if symbol is FOR
>> handle for loop
>> else if symbol is SWITCH
>> handle switch construct
>> else if symbol is WHILE
>> parser is confused not knowing which WHILE it is
>>
>> Is that what you have in mind? I have never seen a parser
>> work that way.
>
> The logic is vastly different, but that's close enough
> to the issue.

Noted.

>> I don't think it is feasible because elements of C, like other
>> languages, are context-sensitve. To make a simple example you
>> similarly cannot say
>>
>> else if symbol is RIGHT_BRACE
>> parser is confused not knowing which LEFT_BRACE it pairs with
>
> You don't need to know which brace goes with which brace as
> long as all braces are properly paired. An up/down counter
> can keep track of scope level and provide a count of missing
> braces.

Maybe a brace is a poor analog of the WHILE problem but even then
consider

do {
if ( condition }

The closing brace there cannot simply be taken as closing the prior left
brace construct. In other words, a compiler is there not just to parse
correct code but also needs to handle erroneous code. I don't know if
that affects your intentions or not.

>> Parser's don't work that way, AFAIK, and I cannot see that
>> they could. They know the *context* and so can match closing
>> tokens with the opening ones.
>
> The goal is to determine the context from syntax as described.

OK.

>> Maybe that's not what you have in mind. If not could you show some
>> pseudocode to explain because I cannot see what you think is a
>> problem.
>
> I was hoping to use logic states, flags, rejection etc, to keep
> track of where the 'statement' for the DO-WHILE is so that
> intermediate WHILEs, those within the 'statement' can be rejected.

OK. I think that can be done. As long as you keep track of context
somewhere it may be parseable.

> I believe this is only needed for the situtations without the
> braces. There is very little syntax or presence/absence info to
> key off of for an example like the one I posted:
>
> do while(x++); while(x++);
> ___-----------____________
>
> E.g., look at logic pulse above. Set a flag at start of
> <statement>, and disable at the end. With braces present,
> this can be done easily by detecting the presence of the
> braces.

Making up a variable "state" and an enum or set of defines could you not
set state = STATEMENT_START immediately after recognising the DO?

Then when you see WHILE you can see if state == STATEMENT_START. If it
does then the WHILE is a new statement.

After seeing the start of a statement you would have to set state to
something else.

Possibly after a statement you would set it to STATEMENT_END. Not sure
without working through it but in that case you would have

.... prior code in the if-elseif chain ....
} else if (token == WHILE) {
if (state == STATEMENT_START) {
/* Handle a while loop */
} else if (state == STATEMENT_END) {
/* Check that we are expecting to end a DO loop */
}
} else if (token == the next token type..... etc

> I.e., there is minimal information context at that point:
> 1) keyword do
> 2) keyword "other", i.e., first "while" here
> 3) whitespace
> 4) absence of braces prior to while
> 5) semicolon
>
> So, in this case, the best I can figure is that I need
> to detect the absence of the brace at a keyword after DO
> but other than DO, then set a flag, disable at the
> semicolon, and use a counter. If the counter is non-zero,
> and a WHILE is found, and that WHILE is not in the rejected
> region, i.e., the innermost braceless <statement>, then
> the WHILE is part of a DO-WHILE.
>
> ... do do while(x++); while(x++); while(x++);
> __________-----------___________________________
> 0 1 2 (rejected) 2 1 0
>
> I haven't worked through this for other cases. I'm
> just presenting this as an example of a possible way
> to solve this. I don't believe this is needed for
> when the braces are present.

C's syntax is a lot more complex than we normally use or allow for. I
think it would be a bad idea to just try to detect things like braces
and the absence thereof, or even to try to enumerate all of the possible
ways that a DO statement can continue. C will often throw up some other
virtually-never-used construct that is still perfectly valid.

For example, consider these

do for (;++i < 10;) while (j < 10) j++; while (0);
do if (c) whileloop: other: while (cond) x++; while (1);

In each case the inner while, if I have written them correctly, will be
a separate statement. No braces anywhere. Perhaps worse, braces could be
added that were nothing to do with the DO-WHILE loop.

...

>>> You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So, when you come
>>> across
>>> a 'while', how do you know what type of while and whether it's part
>>> of
>>> a do-while or not?
>>
>> OK, I can think of a simple answer to that direct question:
>>
>> A: If the WHILE is at the beginning of a statement it's a while loop.
>> Whereas if the WHILE comes after DO and a <statement> then it's the
>> end
>> of a DO loop.
>
> Yes, that's true, but not the issue at hand.
>
>> That's really the nub of it.
>
> That's the "nub of it" for parsers designed the way you presented.

I don't agree. ISTM that that's the way C as a language is structured.
Nothing to do with a particular type of parser.

> It's not the "nub of it" for the parser in question. The parser in
> question has no ability to distinquish a WHILE in a <statement> from
> the WHILE which comes after DO and a <statement>. It knows where
> each while is, each do, but has no ability to link them. I.e.,
> within the statement, if there is a WHILE, it needs an ability to
> differentiate that while from the WHILE which is to come later and
> goes with a DO. This parser needs to determine this purely from
> the textual syntax, which is difficult to do without braces and
> with overloaded uses of WHILE.
>
>> *Where* the WHILE appears is the key but I would stress that the
>> code does *not* read the WHILE and wonder which type it is. Rather,
>> it knows where it is in a construct and looks for specific tokens
>> which are valid at that point.
>
> Ok... Think about construct-less parser. It doesn't know
> where the constructs are and need to determine whether the next
> WHILE found is within the <statement> of a DO-WHILE, the start
> of a WHILE loop, or the end of a DO-WHILE, and which WHILE if
> many are nested. This needs to be done without setting up a large
> amount of tracking, stacks, binary trees, etc. You only have the
> whitespace, keywords, and absence of braces etc that I mentioned
> above to determine this. You can't check for a <statement> after
> DO, but you need to identify and store some info in order to reject
> any WHILE's found in the <statement> as being a match to the DO.

I think you need to maintain an indication of state, as I suggest above,
especially because you cannot rely on the input source being
syntactically correct.

I think you will need to push and pop states so will need one stack data
structure.

James

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:04:28 -0400, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
> news:op.x499nwp5yfako5@localhost...
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:29:16 -0400, James Harris
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Rod Pemberton" <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote in message
>>> news:op.x4xfpfabyfako5@localhost...

>>> That's about as simple as I imagine a parser could be and still parse
>>> C.
>>> What parsing mechanism did you have in mind that's simpler? Detail,
>>> please, as mentioned below.
>>>
>>>> So, your code example follows a grammar based design and looks
>>>> ahead by calling statement_parse() upon finding "token == DO".
>>>
>>> No, the code shown doesn't look ahead at all. It just processes one
>>> token at a time.
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> Your code proceeds to look at the next token, which may be a WHILE
>> token, while in the code construct for handling the DO token. What
>> if you can't proceed to the next token once a DO is found? You can
>> only look at DO. You can't parse a statement next. You must wait
>> for WHILE and then determine how it fits.
>
> I have been trying to get my head round what you are trying to do
> - or, more accurately, how you are trying to do it. I think I am
> getting closer to understanding what you have in mind. I am not
> sure of all the details, though.

...

> For example, when you see a WHILE token what other info
> do you have available that you can look at?

WHILE

and anything else I code up, such as flags.

Technically, I *could* walk the AST, but that is slows everything
down. I was attempting to do this without doing so, i.e., single
pass of AST to assembly, no walking or backtracking of ASTs whether
as a binary tree or linked-list.

> Specifically, when you see WHILE are you thinking to scan
> forwards/backwards for nearby tokens in the stream of tokens
> that represents the source code?

No, I'm attempting to *NOT* do that.

> You mentioned an AST earlier but IIUC from what you said below
> you are not thinking of reading the WHILE token from a tree of
> some sort and then looking for adjacent tree nodes to tell you
> what the context is.

The WHILE token already exists in a tree. This is to emit code
from the AST tree, without walking or backtracing the tree.

>>> I don't think it is feasible because elements of C, like other
>>> languages, are context-sensitve. To make a simple example you
>>> similarly cannot say
>>>
>>> else if symbol is RIGHT_BRACE
>>> parser is confused not knowing which LEFT_BRACE it pairs with
>>
>> You don't need to know which brace goes with which brace as
>> long as all braces are properly paired. An up/down counter
>> can keep track of scope level and provide a count of missing
>> braces.
>
> Maybe a brace is a poor analog of the WHILE problem but even
> then consider

I'm sending another post after this one on the braces issue.

> do {
> if ( condition }
>
> The closing brace there cannot simply be taken as closing the
> prior left brace construct. In other words, a compiler is there
> not just to parse correct code but also needs to handle erroneous
> code. I don't know if that affects your intentions or not.

I'm guessing that would break something somewhere ...

>>> Maybe that's not what you have in mind. If not could you show some
>>> pseudocode to explain because I cannot see what you think is a
>>> problem.
>>
>> I was hoping to use logic states, flags, rejection etc, to keep
>> track of where the 'statement' for the DO-WHILE is so that
>> intermediate WHILEs, those within the 'statement' can be rejected.
>
> OK. I think that can be done. As long as you keep track of context
> somewhere it may be parseable.
>

My other post on braces will demonstrate other solutions and mention
fails for the braces. I was thinking of something similar here.

>> I believe this is only needed for the situtations without the
>> braces. There is very little syntax or presence/absence info to
>> key off of for an example like the one I posted:
>>
>> do while(x++); while(x++);
>> ___-----------____________
>>
>> E.g., look at logic pulse above. Set a flag at start of
>> <statement>, and disable at the end. With braces present,
>> this can be done easily by detecting the presence of the
>> braces.
>
> Making up a variable "state" and an enum or set of defines
> could you not set state = STATEMENT_START immediately after
> recognising the DO?

That is one of the things in the list.

> Then when you see WHILE you can see if state ==
> STATEMENT_START. If it does then the WHILE is a new
> statement.
>
> After seeing the start of a statement you would have to set
> state to something else.
>
> Possibly after a statement you would set it to STATEMENT_END.
> Not sure without working through it but in that case you
> would have
>
> .... prior code in the if-elseif chain ....
> } else if (token == WHILE) {
> if (state == STATEMENT_START) {
> /* Handle a while loop */
> } else if (state == STATEMENT_END) {
> /* Check that we are expecting to end a DO loop */
> }
> } else if (token == the next token type..... etc

...

There are many C compilers with incorrect or incomplete
implementations. Even the old PCC compiler couldn't handle
structs correctly, or maybe it was pointers to structs.

> For example, consider these
>
> do for (;++i < 10;) while (j < 10) j++; while (0);
> do if (c) whileloop: other: while (cond) x++; while (1);
>
> In each case the inner while, if I have written them
> correctly, will be a separate statement. No braces anywhere.
> Perhaps worse, braces could be added that were nothing to
> do with the DO-WHILE loop.

That's right.

How do you detect the "implicit" but not-present braces?

You need to know where they are to generate branches and
branch targets.

>>>> You can't backtrack or trace the AST either. So,
>>>> when you come across a 'while', how do you know
>>>> what type of while and whether it's part of a
>>>> do-while or not?
>>>
>>> OK, I can think of a simple answer to that direct question:
>>>
>>> A: If the WHILE is at the beginning of a statement it's
>>> a while loop. Whereas if the WHILE comes after DO and
>>> a <statement> then it's the end of a DO loop.
>>
>> Yes, that's true, but not the issue at hand.
>>
>>> That's really the nub of it.
>>
>> That's the "nub of it" for parsers designed the way
>> you presented.
>
> I don't agree. ISTM that that's the way C as a language
> is structured. Nothing to do with a particular type of
> parser.

Your parser code is following the way C's grammar rules
are written. For mine, I'm attempting to implement other
solutions for the same issues.

Rod Pemberton


--
Just how many texting and calendar apps does humanity need?

Just how many food articles from neurotic millenials do we need?

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:48:58 -0400, Rod Pemberton <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:29:16 -0400, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> else if symbol is RIGHT_BRACE
>> parser is confused not knowing which LEFT_BRACE it pairs with
>
> You don't need to know which brace goes with which brace as
> long as all braces are properly paired. An up/down counter
> can keep track of scope level and provide a count of missing
> braces.

I should clarify on that.

I thought there were five or so proven ways to generate
branches and target branch labels from braces.

In addition to walking or backtracking the AST, I thought
the following were proven solutions:

a) symbol lookup table
b) integer LIFO (push/pop) stack
c) an up/down counter for the scope level
and some block counters for each scope level,
either 15 (C89) or 127 (C99)
d) an up/down counter with a resettable up counter

My results are:

a) fails.

I think this is for the same reason as 'd)' fails,
which is information loss, but it just might be
the way I attempted to solve it ...

b) works.
c) works.

d) fails.

If 'd)' works, for the life of me, I can't seem to
get it to do so right now ...

I was attempting another method that used peak
detection of counters on the braces, but it's
flawed for more than a level or two of nesting.
So, that's another fail.

AIUI, all loops and conditionals in C can be
rewritten into this form:

/* pre-loop actions */
cond= ... ; /* entry value */
while(cond)
{
...
/* end-of-loop actions */
cond= ... ; /* repeat or exit condition */
}

Obviously, multiple block if-then statements must be
broken down into single blocks and for() and do-while()
must be rewritten into while() to use this. E.g., cond=1
for a do-while() upon entry and then cond would be set
appropriately at the end of the block. for() would be
unrolled. if() would be broken into single blocks, with
cond=0 at the end of block, etc.

So, for each braced block,

{
...
}

I wan't to produce a generic conditional code block
from the braces, such as:

bxxxx:
jz fxxxx
...
jmp bxxx:
fxxxx:

where 'xxxx' is a unique integer for that block,
where 'f' represents a forward branch, and 'b'
represents a backward branch, and 'fxxxx' and
'bxxxx' are the actual labels used once 'xxxx' is
filled in, i.e., b0000 f0000 ... b0009 f0009 ... etc.

So, there at least three succesful methods.

Here are two down-n-dirty (no C niceties) C programs
demonstrating using a integer LIFO stack 'b)' and
up/down counter with level counters 'c)'.

/* integer LIFO stack */
#include <stdio.h>

#define SIZE 1024
unsigned long stack[1024],sp;
unsigned long up_ctr=0,branch=0,idx=0;

#define TABSZ 2
void indent(int idx)
{
printf("%*c",idx*TABSZ,' ');
}

void filter(char *c)
{
/* filter out quotes, comments, character constants here */
}

void push(unsigned long r)
{
/* add stack overflow check here */
stack[sp]=r;
sp++;
}

void pop(unsigned long *r)
{
/* add stack underflow check here */
sp--;
*r=stack[sp];
}

void brclvl(char c)
{

switch(c)
{
case '{':
branch=up_ctr;
idx++;
indent(idx);
printf("b%08lx:\n",branch);
indent(idx);
printf("jz f%08lx\n",branch);
push(branch);
up_ctr++;
break;
case '}':
pop(&branch);
indent(idx);
printf("jmp b%08lx\n",branch);
indent(idx);
printf("f%08lx:\n",branch);
idx--;
break;
}
}

int main(void)
{
char c;

while(1)
{
c=getchar();

filter(&c);
brclvl(c);

if(feof(stdin))
break;
}

return(0);
}
/* end */


/* up/down counter w/level counters */
#include <stdio.h>

/* C89 15 nesting levels */
/* C99 127 nesting levels */

#if 1
#define MAX 15
#endif
#if 0
#define MAX 127
#endif

unsigned long idx=0;
unsigned short nst[MAX];
unsigned short up_ctr=0,branch=0;

#define TABSZ 2
void indent(int idx)
{
printf("%*c",idx*TABSZ,' ');
}

void filter(char *c)
{
/* filter out quotes, comments, character constants here */
}

void brclvl(char c)
{

switch(c)
{
case '{':
branch=nst[up_ctr];
idx++;
indent(idx);
printf("b%04hx%04hx:\n",up_ctr,branch);
indent(idx);
printf("jz f%04hx%04hx\n",up_ctr,branch);
up_ctr++;
break;
case '}':
up_ctr--;
branch=nst[up_ctr];
nst[up_ctr]++;
indent(idx);
printf("jmp b%04hx%04hx\n",up_ctr,branch);
indent(idx);
printf("f%04hx%04hx:\n",up_ctr,branch);
idx--;
break;
}
}

int main(void)
{
char c;

/* memset */
for(idx=0;idx<MAX;idx++)
nst[idx]=0;

while(1)
{
c=getchar();

filter(&c);
brclvl(c);

if(feof(stdin))
break;
}

return(0);
}
/* end */


Hopefully, those will provide an idea of how I'd prefer to
solve emitting assembly branches for C braces without needing
to walk or backtrack the AST.

Rod Pemberton


--
Just how many texting and calendar apps does humanity need?

[James Harris]

On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:48:58 -0400, Rod Pemberton <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm>
> wrote:

...

> In addition to walking or backtracking the AST, I thought
> the following were proven solutions:
>
> a) symbol lookup table
> b) integer LIFO (push/pop) stack
> c) an up/down counter for the scope level
> and some block counters for each scope level,
> either 15 (C89) or 127 (C99)
> d) an up/down counter with a resettable up counter

I will get back to other messages but you may receive more/some
responses to the above message (mostly snipped) on comp.lang.misc. That
group is ideal for this sub-thread about parsing.

James

[Rod Pemberton]

Do you know why I find it _so_ annoying when someone sends a
thread to another group?

It's usually because the other person has a perspective which
is different or which they believe to be correct and are looking
for support to attack or prove incorrect the other party. E.g.,
if you were to simply forward that portion, it would be out of
context, and many would reply that something was wrong and attack
that and me, even though I pointed out what was correct and what
wasn't in the original thread. That apparent "wrongness" of the
minimally quoted section would incorrectly be attributed to me
because of the loss of context. The newly introduced parties
don't know what was said in the unquoted conversation. Now, I'm
not saying that you're going to do that to me, at least not
intentionally, but that has happened enough to me, that it's a
cause for concern. I usually end of having to defend myself a
half-dozen times to people who didn't know what I had said.
So, if you wish to rephrase in your own words, and not attribute
a quote to me which might be taken out of context when quoting,
and post your words to c.l.m. on the issue, that's acceptable.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:32:33 -0400, Rod Pemberton <b...@fasdfrewar.cdm> wrote:

> Here are two down-n-dirty (no C niceties) C programs
> demonstrating using a integer LIFO stack 'b)' and
> up/down counter with level counters 'c)'.
>

So, this post corrects a few bugs, and mentions
some counts of maximum nesting levels expected.


First program bugs:

> /* integer LIFO stack */
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define SIZE 1024
> unsigned long stack[1024],sp;

1024 -> SIZE

> unsigned long up_ctr=0,branch=0,idx=0;
>
> #define TABSZ 2
> void indent(int idx)

int -> unsigned long


Second program bugs:

> /* up/down counter w/level counters */
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> /* C89 15 nesting levels */
> /* C99 127 nesting levels */
>

> [...]

>
> #define TABSZ 2
> void indent(int idx)

int -> unsigned long

> [...]

>
> /* memset */
> for(idx=0;idx<MAX;idx++)
> nst[idx]=0;

idx=0;


Well, that threw off indentation after changing MAX ...

There is still something odd with indentation for the
second program on 64-bit Linux, but I'm not interested
and don't have the time to find or fix it.

So, I modified those two programs and set MAX and SIZE
to 65535, and added some peak code to detect the maximum
nested depth and maximum number of inner-scope blocks.

E.g, this {{{}{}{}{{{}{}}}}} gives 5 3 with 3 being the
largest number of inner-scope blocks and 5 being the
maximum depth of blocks.

So, I ran the large single file C programs from the link
below and got the following results:

gcc.c 43 15720
oggenc.c 11 3504
gzip.c 9 221
bzip2.c 9 181

What that means is, if using either of the two posted
methods, you need a stack or array with a depth of
somewhat more than 15,720 to generate all the branch
targets for single-file gcc.c, since 15,720 are just
the count of the inner-most blocks.

However, it also shows that a stack or array of 256
should be sufficient for all programs, except the
absolute largest of C files.

Large single compilation-unit C programs
http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/

[s_dub...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> You would think that C, being created long ago, would be very easy
> to parse with truly simple techniques, but things like optional
> braces, 'while' used as both 'while' and 'do-while', i.e., which
> 'while' goes with 'do' when nested, base types comprising multiple
> words, e.g., "long long", implicit int's, no keyword for typedef
> usage, conflict with implicit int's and typedef's, ... etc all
> complicate very simple C parsers.
>
> E.g., since braces are optional in C, there isn't much useful
> information for parsing, from statements like this:
>

first:> do while(x--); while(x--);

>
> That's confusing for a human and a simple parser. It could be
> recognized by both as either of these:
>

second:> do { while(x--); } while(x--);
third:> do {} while (x--); while(x--);
>
My fourth: do ; while (x--); while(x--);

> Which 'while' goes with the 'do'? Only the first one is correct,
> but how do you determine that from the braceless syntax above?
> You get a 'while' prior to the 'while' you need.

But the form of do..while is 'do <statement> while ( expression ) ;

So, first: and second: are equivalent as nested loops. The first
'while' after 'do' is seen as <statement>.

And, third: and fourth: are equivalent as un-nested loops. The
<statement> in third: is the compound null statement '{}', the
<statement> in fourth: is the singular null statement.
(That is, as seen by GCC).

>
> Technically, the second example needs a semicolon, but that
> doesn't help any with properly parsing the braceless example.

Yes, '{}' should be '{;}' but compilers are lax about this rule.
The braces are supposed to bracket one or more statements, and ';'
stands in for the null statement. If you are lawyering C, '{}'
should be a soft error, but if it is pruned from the AST as a
non-statement then third: becomes as first: and second:, so this
makes your point, chalk-up another idiosyncrasy.

>
> 'while' is overloaded or ambiguous. It means two different
> things at different places, and somehow the parser or compiler
> must distinquish and keep track of which 'while' goes with
> which 'do'. Nesting can throw the dual-keyword do-while loop
> tracking out of whack. Adding nested while just complicates
> it further. You almost need a stack and a state-machine.
>

Well you do. The parser is looking for <statement> when is sees
'do', and expects another <statement> next after 'do' - what if
that is another 'do'? Seems to me that is a recursion needing
'a stack and a state-machine' to parse.

(5) do do do ; while (x--); while (y--); while (z--);
==================
int x,y,z;

main ()
{ /** gcc -S -o tstdowh.s tstdowh.c **/

first: do while (x--); while (x--);
second: do { while (x--); } while (x--);
third: do {} while (x--); while (x--);
fourth: do ; while (x--); while (x--);

do do do ; while (x--); while (y--); while (z--);
}
--------
.file "tstdowh.c"
.comm x,4,4
.comm y,4,4
.comm z,4,4
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushl %ebp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
.cfi_offset 5, -8
movl %esp, %ebp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 5
(first)
.L2:
.L11:
nop
.L3:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L3
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L11
(second)
.L4:
.L12:
nop
.L5:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L5
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L12
(third-a)
.L6:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L6
nop
(third-b)
.L7:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L7
(fourth-a)
.L8:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L8
nop
(fourth-b)
.L9:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L9

(5-fifth)(three nested loops)
.L10:
movl x, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, x
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L10
movl y, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, y
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L10
movl z, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
setne %dl
subl $1, %eax
movl %eax, z
testb %dl, %dl
jne .L10
popl %ebp
.cfi_restore 5
.cfi_def_cfa 4, 4
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits

==================
I was going to bring up another subject but I'm out of time:

Is it possible to program in C in a stackless way for pure ROM code.
I.e. no calls (labeled functions), only register parameters.

Steve
==================

[James Harris]

On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:04:28 -0400, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Replying after some absence. You may have already got past the points
below. Feel free to ignore if you have.

>> I have been trying to get my head round what you are trying to do
>> - or, more accurately, how you are trying to do it. I think I am
>> getting closer to understanding what you have in mind. I am not
>> sure of all the details, though.
>
> ...
>
>> For example, when you see a WHILE token what other info
>> do you have available that you can look at?
>
> WHILE
>
> and anything else I code up, such as flags.

Does your approach boil down to needing to distinguishing WHILE in these
three contexts?

1. at the start of a statement
2. at the conclusion of a DO construct
3. everywhere else (an error)

If so you might get away with setting flags BUT because C is a recursive
language you would need to save any such flag or flags on a stack if you
made a call that could end up being recursive.

> Technically, I *could* walk the AST, but that is slows everything
> down. I was attempting to do this without doing so, i.e., single
> pass of AST to assembly, no walking or backtracking of ASTs whether
> as a binary tree or linked-list.

If you can walk any sort of tree at this point then I have to suggest it
would be better to use a normal parse mechanism. With the exception of a
backtracking parser, parsing is one of the faster phases of a compiler
so you may be ill advised to try to save time with your contextless
approach. It may be a bit like trying to analyse a chess position based
purely on the current board without forming a game tree: great and
revolutionary if you could make it work but probably impractical,
impossible to program, and more work in the long run.

>> Specifically, when you see WHILE are you thinking to scan
>> forwards/backwards for nearby tokens in the stream of tokens
>> that represents the source code?
>
> No, I'm attempting to *NOT* do that.

OK.

>> You mentioned an AST earlier but IIUC from what you said below
>> you are not thinking of reading the WHILE token from a tree of
>> some sort and then looking for adjacent tree nodes to tell you
>> what the context is.
>
> The WHILE token already exists in a tree. This is to emit code
> from the AST tree, without walking or backtracing the tree.

Normally an AST is the /output/ of a parse. If you have put a WHILE node
in a tree and you don't know what type of WHILE it is then you may be
making a rod for your own back when you try to distinguish such elements
later.

I think you would have had to have already worked out what type of WHILE
it was before you could really call the tree an AST.

...

>> For example, consider these
>>
>> do for (;++i < 10;) while (j < 10) j++; while (0);
>> do if (c) whileloop: other: while (cond) x++; while (1);
>>
>> In each case the inner while, if I have written them
>> correctly, will be a separate statement. No braces anywhere.
>> Perhaps worse, braces could be added that were nothing to
>> do with the DO-WHILE loop.
>
> That's right.
>
> How do you detect the "implicit" but not-present braces?
>
> You need to know where they are to generate branches and
> branch targets.

I would say that if you followed a correct C grammar then braces would
appear naturally where a statement was expected. If a pair of braces was
not present at a certain point then valid code would still have a
statement there. Braces represent a compound statement but that's just
one form of statement.

...

> Your parser code is following the way C's grammar rules
> are written. For mine, I'm attempting to implement other
> solutions for the same issues.

It's an interesting idea. You might get it to work. It reminds me,
however, that when I was at school I tried to come up with an algorithm
for marking a game that some people call bulls-and-cows. Rather than do
it in a simple way I tried to do it a clever way that would be faster
than the obvious solution. But it became so complicated that I
eventually realised that it would be far better to do the marking in the
most obvious way. Even if I had got my clever approach to work it would
have been unmaintainable.

James

[James Harris]

On 06/10/2015 02:56, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:13:59 -0400, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> I will get back to other messages but you may receive more/some
>> responses to the above message (mostly snipped) on comp.lang.misc.
>> That group is ideal for this sub-thread about parsing.
>>
>
> Do you know why I find it _so_ annoying when someone sends a
> thread to another group?
>
> It's usually because the other person has a perspective which
> is different or which they believe to be correct and are looking
> for support to attack or prove incorrect the other party. E.g.,
> if you were to simply forward that portion, it would be out of
> context, and many would reply that something was wrong and attack
> that and me, even though I pointed out what was correct and what
> wasn't in the original thread. That apparent "wrongness" of the
> minimally quoted section would incorrectly be attributed to me
> because of the loss of context. The newly introduced parties
> don't know what was said in the unquoted conversation. Now, I'm
> not saying that you're going to do that to me, at least not
> intentionally, but that has happened enough to me, that it's a
> cause for concern. I usually end of having to defend myself a
> half-dozen times to people who didn't know what I had said.
> So, if you wish to rephrase in your own words, and not attribute
> a quote to me which might be taken out of context when quoting,
> and post your words to c.l.m. on the issue, that's acceptable.

Understood. I had no intention of forwarding all or part of your message
to another group. There would be little point unless you wanted to
discuss it there. That's why I just recommended it.

If I do include another group in a reply it's not for the malicious or
insecurity reasons you mention. It is usually because I think people in
the new group would find the topic interesting.

James

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:04:28 -0400, James Harris
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Replying after some absence. You may have already got past
> the points below. Feel free to ignore if you have.

Nope ...

Since the method I was using for branch labels is not
correct, I'll probably rewrite the code to work with
one of the two methods for generating them which I posted.
I haven't decided as to which, yet, but one will be
sufficient for known brace locations. I determined (and
posted) the nesting levels in hope that it might help me
decide ... Determining the locations of the "missing" or
"implicit" braces, or which type of WHILE etc, will just
be left for a future task since I don't plan on using a
grammar rules based method or re-coding it at present.
This part of an already rather large program that would
mostly be discarded, if that was done. On merit alone,
I'm hanging on to the code.

Around the time you last posted, I figured out two paths
I could take my command-line interpreter project, after
realizing that half my OS code should be used in the
command-line interpreter project and the other half should
really be spun out as a pure, standalone OS. My initial
path for my OS project was for an execution environment
for DJGPP apps and deviated into the OS project. The first
path for the command-line interpreters is towards a Windows
98/SE like OS, i.e., execution environment for DJGPP apps.
I'm using "OS" loosely here. The other path would be
towards a Linux kernel and/or shell on DOS. While the
latter would be interesting, the DJGPP C compiler won't
support full Linux apps on DOS. There is a bit of work
in four or five areas I'd need to do to progress this.

I _really_ haven't been motivated to do any programming
since I figured out those paths for my projects ...

I did do a new and small project with parsing and compiling
BrainFuck, derived from my other BrainFuck and Forth and ITC
projects. It combines ITC Brainfuck interpreter in C with
the standard Brainfuck array in C. The ITC interpreter is
a reduced, optimized, variation of my Forth interpreter.
I already have other Brainfuck projects, like a single pass,
no memory allocation, trivial optimizing, Brainfuck to pure
C converter. Now, with a slightly different language front
end or some enhancements to BrainFuck language, the ITC BF
would create a very compact execution model, very embeddable.
I did some work in the past on determining common BF sequences,
which could provide slightly higher level language
functionality. I'm wondering if I could combine it with
another compact model, e.g., FSM, and whether I could find
any purpose to do so, i.e., code reduction, code optimization.

>>> I have been trying to get my head round what you are trying to do
>>> - or, more accurately, how you are trying to do it. I think I am
>>> getting closer to understanding what you have in mind. I am not
>>> sure of all the details, though.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> For example, when you see a WHILE token what other info
>>> do you have available that you can look at?
>>
>> WHILE
>>
>> and anything else I code up, such as flags.
>
> Does your approach boil down to needing to distinguishing WHILE
> in these three contexts?
>
> 1. at the start of a statement
> 2. at the conclusion of a DO construct
> 3. everywhere else (an error)

(I'm not sure. The thread is somewhat stale now.
My mental state on the issue is lost, but I seem
to recall you asking something similar previously.)

However, probably 1 and 2, but not 3.

Issues with erroneous code would be for later, or as a result
of failed code generation, or for the user, or for the public
to fix, depending on my future time, effort, and/or desires.
I.e., no proper syntax checking at the moment. E.g., I can
always run my personal C code through other compilers to confirm
correctness for now.

In my own languages, I can simply use different keywords for
each WHILE position, e.g., DO UNTIL, or use my personal
preference, which is to have only one keyword, like LOOP ,
for an infinite looping construct. Of course, it would be
breakable or exitable.

> If so you might get away with setting flags BUT because C is
> a recursive language you would need to save any such flag or
> flags on a stack if you made a call that could end up being
> recursive.

...

>> Technically, I *could* walk the AST, but that is slows everything
>> down. I was attempting to do this without doing so, i.e., single
>> pass of AST to assembly, no walking or backtracking of ASTs whether
>> as a binary tree or linked-list.
>
> If you can walk any sort of tree at this point then I have to suggest
> it would be better to use a normal parse mechanism. With the exception
> of a backtracking parser, parsing is one of the faster phases of a
> compiler so you may be ill advised to try to save time with your
> contextless approach.

...

> It may be a bit like trying to analyse a chess
> position based purely on the current board without forming a game
> tree: great and revolutionary if you could make it work but probably
> impractical, impossible to program, and more work in the long run.

Why do you see this as any different from analyzing a chess game
from the starting positions? i.e., no move history or game tree,
unless artificially constructed for initial piece placement ...

Depending on the pieces remaining and their positions, especially
proximity, it may actually be much easier, i.e., fewer pieces
and positions under attack. Positions under attack can be trimmed
for computation, if the opponent is limited to short-move pieces,
e.g., no queen, rook, bishop. The opponent may not be able to move
into the broad attack positions of your queen, rook, bishop. IIRC,
the end-games of chess up to a handful of pieces have all been solved.

IIRC, you brought up a chess analogy before too.

> It's an interesting idea. You might get it to work. It reminds me,
> however, that when I was at school I tried to come up with an
> algorithm for marking a game that some people call bulls-and-cows.
> Rather than do it in a simple way I tried to do it a clever way
> that would be faster than the obvious solution. But it became so
> complicated that I eventually realised that it would be far better
> to do the marking in the most obvious way. Even if I had got my
> clever approach to work it would have been unmaintainable.

Bulls and cows? ... (look up)

Wikipedia says the game is similar to the commercial game Mastermind.

I loved Mastermind as a kid for a year or so. However, I have
no recollection as to how the game was played, or how I solved it,
just that I seemed to win frequently, against other kids ... I
still remember the board and pegs.

The Wikipedia page on Mastermind says Donald Knuth determined an
algorithm for solving it. Some mathematicians have developed their
own algorithms. It seems they've determined the average game length.
So, any algorithm for solving either game is measurable.


Rod Pemberton


--
The idea that sentient beings can be suppressed by a few simple
rules is a farce. Even so, Isaac Asimov posited such rules for
sentient artificial intelligence.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It reminds me, however, that when I was at school I tried to come up
> with an algorithm for marking a game that some people call bulls-and-cows.

Since you're reminiscing, here is a "bulls-and-cows" test
harness in C I just whipped up after dinner. You should be able
to modify it to add in an algorithm of your choice rather
easily. You need to activate a define for either TEST or USER
or RAND. USER is set. I don't have a preprocessor check for
none of them set. TEST uses hardcoded values. RAND generates
both the guess and secret. USER lets the user play. I left in most
standard C functions for you, except memset() which I implemented
as loops, although it's missing niceties like EXIT_SUCCESS, etc.
I likely would've eliminated isdigit() otherwise. It'll warn on
some unused variables depending on which define you choose. Ignore
this. Although one can implement a division at the end using
either floating point or integer arithmetic, I didn't bother.
Some of the code may look rudimentary, e.g., condition to
break exit while(1) loops, or aligned braces, but I assure
you, that I can just as easily code it the other way around.
If you want, you can rework cows() to call bulls(). Redundant.
Or, rework bulls() to pass scs instead of using a file scope var.


/* Bulls and Cows - test harness .RP */
/* Rod Pemberton - Dec 27 2015 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h> /* isdigit */
#include <stdlib.h> /* rand srand */
#include <time.h> /* time */

#define SC 4
#define DG 10

unsigned char secret[SC+1],guess[SC+1];
unsigned int sec_tab[DG],gue_tab[DG];
int scs;

#if 0
#define TEST
#endif
#if 1
#define USER
#endif
#if 0
#define RAND
#endif
#if !defined(TEST) && !defined(USER) && !defined(RAND)
#error "must define one"
#endif
#if defined(TEST) && defined(USER)
#error "two defined"
#endif
#if defined(USER) && defined(RAND)
#error "two defined"
#endif
#if defined(TEST) && defined(RAND)
#error "two defined"
#endif

#ifdef TEST
#define G1
#define S1
#endif
#ifdef RAND
#define G2
#define S2
#endif
#ifdef USER
#define G3
#define S2
#endif

void do_secret()
{
int i,r;

#ifdef S1
secret[0]='4';
secret[1]='0';
secret[2]='5';
secret[3]='1';
printf("Secret is %s.\n",secret);
#endif
#ifdef S2
for(i=0;i<DG;i++) /* memset */
{
sec_tab[i]=0;
}
i=0;
while(1)
{
r=(rand()>>3)%DG;
if(!sec_tab[r])
{
secret[i]=r+'0';
sec_tab[r]=1;
i++;
}
if(i==SC)
break;
}
#if 0
printf("Secret is %s.\n",secret);
#endif
#endif
}

void do_guess()
{
unsigned char c;
int i,r;

printf("Enter guess.\n");
#ifdef G1
guess[0]='1';
guess[1]='0';
guess[2]='3';
guess[3]='4';
#endif
#ifdef G2
for(i=0;i<DG;i++) /* memset */
{
gue_tab[i]=0;
}
i=0;
while(1)
{
r=(rand()>>3)%DG;
if(!gue_tab[r])
{
guess[i]=r+'0';
gue_tab[r]=1;
i++;
}
if(i==SC)
break;
}
#endif
#ifdef G3
i=0;
while(1)
{
c=getchar();
if(isdigit((int)c))
{
guess[i]=c;
i++;
}
if(i==SC)
break;
}
#endif
printf("Guess is %s.\n",guess);
}

void bulls(void)
{
int i,sts;

sts=0;
for(i=0;i<SC;i++)
{
if(guess[i]==secret[i])
sts++;
}
printf("%d bulls ",sts);
if(sts==SC)
scs=1;
}

void cows(void)
{
int i,sts;

sts=0;
for(i=0;i<DG;i++) /* memset */
{
sec_tab[i]=0;
gue_tab[i]=0;
}
for(i=0;i<SC;i++)
{
sec_tab[secret[i]-'0']=1;
gue_tab[guess[i]-'0']=1;
}
for(i=0;i<DG;i++)
{
if((sec_tab[i])&&(gue_tab[i]))
sts++;
}
for(i=0;i<SC;i++)
{
if(guess[i]==secret[i])
sts--;
}
printf("%d cows\n",sts);
}

int main(void)
{
char q; /* quit */
int attempts,games;

secret[SC]='\0';
guess[SC]='\0';

games=0;
attempts=0;
while(1)
{
games++;
scs=0;
srand(time(0));
do_secret();
while(1)
{
attempts++;
do_guess();
bulls();
cows();
if(scs)
break;
printf("Sorry, try again.\n");
#ifdef TEST
break;
#endif
};
printf("Congratulations!\n");
printf("Again? 'y' or 'n'\n");
while(1)
{
q=getchar();
if((q=='n')||(q=='N')||(q=='y')||(q=='Y'))
break;
}
if((q=='n')||(q=='N'))
break;
}
printf("attempts/games %d/%d\n",attempts,games);

return(0);
}

/* .RP */

[James Harris]

On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

> Around the time you last posted, I figured out two paths
> I could take my command-line interpreter project, after
> realizing that half my OS code should be used in the
> command-line interpreter project and the other half should
> really be spun out as a pure, standalone OS. My initial
> path for my OS project was for an execution environment
> for DJGPP apps and deviated into the OS project. The first
> path for the command-line interpreters is towards a Windows
> 98/SE like OS, i.e., execution environment for DJGPP apps.
> I'm using "OS" loosely here. The other path would be
> towards a Linux kernel and/or shell on DOS. While the
> latter would be interesting, the DJGPP C compiler won't
> support full Linux apps on DOS. There is a bit of work
> in four or five areas I'd need to do to progress this.

That seems to be traditional and a good design. IIRC the Unix model has
a privileged kernel and an unprivileged command-line interpreter. The
latter communicates with the former by (making library calls which get
translated to) system calls.

> I _really_ haven't been motivated to do any programming
> since I figured out those paths for my projects ...

I don't have the motivation I once had. Perhaps we should do these
projects while we are younger!

...

I've snipped your entire paragraph talking about a language that has an
expletive in its name. If possible, it would be great if you could omit
further reference to that language. Your choice, of course, but some
people, including me, still find such words offensive and it's not
something I would type or discuss, and is a word I try to avoid reading.

...

>>> Technically, I *could* walk the AST, but that is slows everything
>>> down. I was attempting to do this without doing so, i.e., single
>>> pass of AST to assembly, no walking or backtracking of ASTs whether
>>> as a binary tree or linked-list.
>>
>> If you can walk any sort of tree at this point then I have to suggest
>> it would be better to use a normal parse mechanism. With the exception
>> of a backtracking parser, parsing is one of the faster phases of a
>> compiler so you may be ill advised to try to save time with your
>> contextless approach.
>

> ....

>
>> It may be a bit like trying to analyse a chess
>> position based purely on the current board without forming a game
>> tree: great and revolutionary if you could make it work but probably
>> impractical, impossible to program, and more work in the long run.
>
> Why do you see this as any different from analyzing a chess game
> from the starting positions? i.e., no move history or game tree,
> unless artificially constructed for initial piece placement ...

I see them as similar. Both (traditionally) need a tree to be
constructed. I was saying that parsing without constructing a tree seems
to me similar to trying to analyse a chess position without constructing
a tree. There may be a way to do both without using a tree but no one
has discovered it yet and it's likely to be much easier in both cases
just to follow the traditional process; you may be making life harder
for yourself in the long run by trying to avoid what you call a
grammar-based parse.

...

> Bulls and cows? ... (look up)
>
> Wikipedia says the game is similar to the commercial game Mastermind.
>
> I loved Mastermind as a kid for a year or so. However, I have
> no recollection as to how the game was played, or how I solved it,
> just that I seemed to win frequently, against other kids ... I
> still remember the board and pegs.

I think the Mastermind board game was just a modern copy of Bulls and
Cows. Like you I had fun playing it as a kid.

In the UK there was a TV programme called Mastermind in which a
questionmaster would grill contestants on specialist subjects and
general knowledge. I think the Mastermind board game box graphic was
based on it. It seems that the Mastermind TV show is still running or
has been revived. I wouldn't be surprised if it was run in other
countries too.

I think I have finally caught up with any outstanding replies on this
newsgroup. Sorry for the delay. Let me know if I have missed any you are
aware of and I will get to them.

James

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris
> > <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> I've snipped your entire paragraph talking about a language that has
> an expletive in its name. If possible, it would be great if you could
> omit further reference to that language. Your choice, of course, but
> some people, including me, still find such words offensive and it's
> not something I would type or discuss, and is a word I try to avoid
> reading.

Since you watch Star Trek, I'd suspect you watched Red Dwarf too. :)
Didn't you? Admit it. Red Dwarf had "smeg." And, your British TV
shows use "bloody" - basically like the F-word here - without
censoring it. You don't find "bloody" offensive, do you?

Well, I'm surprised. It's not used in an expletive context. "Innit?"
So, why "omit further reference to that language," if it's just the
use of the expletive which offends you and not the language? ...
Some use "BF" instead for just that reason.

Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more than
a few times in the past without any objection by you to either the name
or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's novel in it's
simplicity. It seems you hate the language now too ...

Personally, I'm opposed to all censorship. I prefer to be respectful
to the actual name of the programming language.

[heavily truncated]

An abstract syntax tree is constructed. It's just that a set of grammar
rules wasn't used to construct it. I.e., the ordering of language
elements, or recursive nature as you call it, isn't information which
is being checked for by logic and/or being recorded in the tree, stack,
etc. Hence, pairing/matching issues of while with do or not, etc.

I will attempt to get back your three other posts later.
Currently, I can't stop laughing at one mine in the Smaller C
thread ... :-) I will have wait to see how you responded, i.e.,
if you took it jokingly or angrily or seriously.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 16/01/2016 19:30, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris
>>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
>> I've snipped your entire paragraph talking about a language that has
>> an expletive in its name. If possible, it would be great if you could
>> omit further reference to that language. Your choice, of course, but
>> some people, including me, still find such words offensive and it's
>> not something I would type or discuss, and is a word I try to avoid
>> reading.
>
> Since you watch Star Trek, I'd suspect you watched Red Dwarf too. :)
> Didn't you? Admit it. Red Dwarf had "smeg."

LOL, yes, I did find the first few series of Red Dwarf funny - very
funny in some cases. I don't think of smeg is a swearword. It's just
short for smegma, AIUI deliberately unpleasant but not swearing.

Have you ever seen the UK comedy show Porridge? It is set in a prison
and uses pseudo-swearwords naff and nerk. I don't mind those either as
they were just made up and meaningless. I see smeg as a word invented
for a similar purpose.

> And, your British TV
> shows use "bloody" - basically like the F-word here - without
> censoring it. You don't find "bloody" offensive, do you?

Yes, "bloody" is a word I would only use to describe something that is
characterised by blood such as a conflict or a wound. I don't like to
hear it used as a curse and try to avoid TV or radio shows containing it
but even it is not as bad as the F word or the C word or the N word (IMO).

I know at the end of the day that these are just words but we grow up
with certain exposures and there are some words that are or were
deliberately used in order to be offensive or that, perhaps, refer to
something which is perfectly normal such as sex or a vulva or a black
person in deliberately coarse terms. That coarseness, for me, rules them
out.

Speaking of different sensibilities, I remember some American friends
taking exception to the phrase which I believe is sometimes abbreviated
SOB. Do Americans find that offensive? If so, why? When referring to a
female dog would an American see the term "bitch" as offensive - or is
it that maligning someone's mother is the offensive part?

> Well, I'm surprised. It's not used in an expletive context. "Innit?"
> So, why "omit further reference to that language," if it's just the
> use of the expletive which offends you and not the language? ...
> Some use "BF" instead for just that reason.

Yes, I've seen that. It's still a reminder, though, and one tends to
'hear' the word in one's mind while reading the abbreviation.

> Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more than
> a few times in the past without any objection by you to either the name
> or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's novel in it's
> simplicity. It seems you hate the language now too ...

Not with me. I've always avoided any discussion about it with anyone and
I know nothing about it.

> Personally, I'm opposed to all censorship. I prefer to be respectful
> to the actual name of the programming language.

Sure. Censorship is one person deciding what another can see or hear.
This is not about that. It's not up to one of us what someone else wants
to talk about. But as a courtesy we can avoid things that we know others
do not like.

For example, we might avoid the N word because we know it has been used
in offensive ways and that offence still resonates.

...

> I will attempt to get back your three other posts later.
> Currently, I can't stop laughing at one mine in the Smaller C
> thread ... :-) I will have wait to see how you responded, i.e.,
> if you took it jokingly or angrily or seriously.

It's sometimes hard to tell with you. I think you have said you are
sometimes between joking and serious whether there is a smiley or not.

I am intrigued, though, as to which one you mean...!

James

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:40:54 +0000

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/01/2016 19:30, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:09:48 +0000
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 27/12/2015 22:35, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:51:24 -0500, James Harris
> >>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 01/10/2015 01:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

[OT]

> Yes, "bloody" is a word I would only use to describe something that
> is characterised by blood such as a conflict or a wound. I don't like
> to hear it used as a curse and try to avoid TV or radio shows
> containing it but even it is not as bad as the F word or the C word
> or the N word (IMO).

Well, ISTM, you seem more an uptight American than British. :-)
Ok, now, that's funny, and hopefully not offensive.

> Speaking of different sensibilities, I remember some American friends
> taking exception to the phrase which I believe is sometimes
> abbreviated SOB. Do Americans find that offensive? If so, why? When
> referring to a female dog would an American see the term "bitch" as
> offensive - or is it that maligning someone's mother is the offensive
> part?

I personally don't see SOB as offensive. It was more so probably
1970's, being sort of similar in usage to "asshole" maybe a bit
more vulgar, maybe because divorce rates spiked then? It doesn't
seem to be used much anymore. I really don't see the B-word (bitch)
as offensive, but I'm a male. Many women still don't like it, but
they absolutely **HATE** the C-word (like punt). They've mostly
accepted the P-word (like fuzzy cat) and words like "tits" and "ass"
and "boobs" as their own, although the P-word was hated as much as
the C-word until more recently. This might be part of the the the
new female empowerment movement in the US. Except for the F-word,
and mildly the two S-words, the seven words in George Carlin's comedy
skit are not that offensive anymore or have fallen out of usage.
They were once the most offensive words in American English and
basically the only swear words ... Of course, the most offensive
joke is "The Aristocrat's" joke which supposedly goes back to
vaudeville. It was only told amongst comedians until a 2005
documentary. It is known to have been told by every comedy legends
as far back as Groucho Marx ...

> > Besides,I thought we had discussed that programming language more
> > than a few times in the past without any objection by you to either
> > the name or the actual language. Perhaps, this was on c.l.m? It's
> > novel in it's simplicity. It seems you hate the language now
> > too ...
>
> Not with me. I've always avoided any discussion about it with anyone
> and I know nothing about it.

That's odd ...


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:34:44 -0500
Rod Pemberton <NoHave...@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote:

[OT]

> Of course, the most offensive
> joke is "The Aristocrat's" joke which supposedly goes back to
> vaudeville. It was only told amongst comedians until a 2005
> documentary. It is known to have been told by every comedy legends
> as far back as Groucho Marx ...

Yeah, ...

I should probably tell you why I brought that part up as you'll
likely never watch the joke being performed by comedy legends
such as George Carlin, Gilbert Gottfried, Bob Saget, Penn Jillette,
Sarah Silverman, etc.

But, first, let's sidetrack.

What do you think of Shakespeare? Is he (or she) vulgar or profane?
Do you oppose murders, death, and wars in his plays? Most think of
him as one of the world's greatest authors, and I suspect you do too.
Yet, he spelled out the C-word in the Tweflth Night and used
euphemisms for it in Ophelia, Romeo and Juliet, etc.

What about the Holy Bible? Most would consider that to be one of
the world's greatest books. Yet, it contains every horrible act
of humanity that has ever existed, except perhaps nuclear war.

I'm basically asking if you think that you're a hypocrite, politely,
because I suspect you think these are great works of art just like
the rest of humanity.

Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke is considered
to be of the highest art in comedy, because it's not a joke at all,
except maybe on the listener. It's about the comedic performance
of the comedian and their ability to tell it without losing the
audience. There is literally no joke. The comedian goes on stage
without a joke, ad-libs the "joke", and then doesn't provide a
punch-line, doesn't get boo-ed off-stage, doesn't get arrested
for profanity or vulgarity for the "joke" part.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 18/01/2016 13:37, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:34:44 -0500
> Rod Pemberton <NoHave...@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote:

[OT]

> What do you think of Shakespeare? Is he (or she) vulgar or profane?

I have only read a few of his plays: Hamlet, Macbeth, The Taming of the
Shrew, Romeo and Juliet, and maybe a couple of others. I don't think
much of some of his plots but I am in awe of some of his ways of
expressing things.

Hamlet is favourite. It is rich in meaningful expression.

For example, lamenting that his mother remarried too soon after the
death of his much-loved father, Hamlet says to his only friend, Horatio:
"the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables."
Of course it's not literal but that is a wonderful picture to describe
Hamlet's state of mind.

When Horatio says that Hamlet's father was a goodly king Hamlet replies:
"He was a man. Take him for all in all. I shall not look upon his like
again."

Shakespeare's phrasing is so rich that he has added to the English
language many expressions we still use today. And, incidentally, was the
source of many titles for episodes of the original Star Trek.

The Conscience of the King
Dagger of the Mind
All Our Yesterdays
By Any Other Name
The Undiscovered Country

> Do you oppose murders, death, and wars in his plays? Most think of
> him as one of the world's greatest authors, and I suspect you do too.
> Yet, he spelled out the C-word in the Tweflth Night and used
> euphemisms for it in Ophelia, Romeo and Juliet, etc.

I don't know much about any of that. As for murders, wars etc there is a
difference between mentioning them and unnecessarily going into gory
detail. I don't know what Shakespeare did. I probably have not read the
plays that contain those events. About all I know is: "my kingdom for a
horse!"

> What about the Holy Bible? Most would consider that to be one of
> the world's greatest books. Yet, it contains every horrible act
> of humanity that has ever existed, except perhaps nuclear war.

I don't know. For the horrible acts you mention I believe the Bible says
that the Israelites engaged in some depraved acts when they turned away
from God and started to follow the practices of the religions of nearby
nations. But I am pretty sure those things were not reported with any
kind of approval, rather just the opposite. News media today report
events but that doesn't mean that they approve of them.

Besides, reporting bad events is a different issue, isn't it? I thought
we were discussing the use of profanities.

> I'm basically asking if you think that you're a hypocrite, politely,
> because I suspect you think these are great works of art just like
> the rest of humanity.

No, I think I am consistent. For example, I greatly like some parts of
Shakespeare but if I read something of his I did not like I would not
make excuses for him. Similarly, I like discussions on this newsgroup
but I would avoid tasteless parts, threads or subthreads.

> Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke ...

I looked it up and found it is a form of joke with something disgusting
in the middle.

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

It seems rather stupid to me: vulgarity for the sake of it or for shock
value, perhaps.

James

[wolfgang kern]

James Harris in discussion with Rod Pemberton:
...

>> Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke ...

> I looked it up and found it is a form of joke with something disgusting
> in the middle.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats

> It seems rather stupid to me: vulgarity for the sake of it or for shock
> value, perhaps.

what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ?
I love this kind of black and dirty humour.

__
wolfgang

[James Harris]

On 19/01/2016 11:52, wolfgang kern wrote:

[OT]

> what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ?
> I love this kind of black and dirty humour.

I think I have a quirky sense of humour in that I sometimes find the
secondary jokes funnier than the main ones. The primary humour can be a
bit obvious but the way they support it can be better.

For example, IIRC one Python film has a Frenchman leaning over the
battlement of a castle telling the English what he thinks of them.
Needless to say, it is not complimentary! I can't remember his monologue
but I loved the *glee* with which this Frenchman (possibly played by
Cleese) took the opportunity to pour out his evidently long-held bile
against the hated and despised English, and his delight that the stupid
English just stood and listened to it! I can imagine him getting home to
the wife later and telling her what a great day he'd had. Brilliant!

Speaking of nationalistic humour, I remember The News Quiz in the days
when it was wonderfully chaired by Barry Took. You won't know the names
as it had a British focus but this was a radio quiz that alternated
questions on the week's news events to two teams. The chairman would
humorously summarise each story before going on to the next one.

I gather that Aussies can be very sensitive about their population's
origins as a prisoner colony. In one News Quiz episode the question was
about British children copying accents they heard in Australian soap
operas. The chairman (Took) summed up saying in an Australian accent
that British children had been heard to change the emPHASSis on words,
and to copy the Aussies in going *UP* at the end of a sentence ...
which, he said, was quite surprising as most of them went down at the
beginning of one to get there in the first place...! LOL. In a
politically correct world one is probably not supposed to say things
like that!

Going back to Monty Python, you would have to give some examples. I
found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I
remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular episode
of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had been
funny in the entire episode!

James

[wolfgang kern]

James Harris replied:

[OT]

>> what do you think about my favorite English Comedies from Monty Python ?
>> I love this kind of black and dirty humour.

> I think I have a quirky sense of humour in that I sometimes find the
> secondary jokes funnier than the main ones. The primary humour can be a
> bit obvious but the way they support it can be better.

> For example, IIRC one Python film has a Frenchman leaning over the
> battlement of a castle telling the English what he thinks of them.
> Needless to say, it is not complimentary! I can't remember his monologue
> but I loved the *glee* with which this Frenchman (possibly played by
> Cleese) took the opportunity to pour out his evidently long-held bile
> against the hated and despised English, and his delight that the stupid
> English just stood and listened to it! I can imagine him getting home to
> the wife later and telling her what a great day he'd had. Brilliant!

Yeah, excellent and brilliant too.

> Speaking of nationalistic humour, I remember The News Quiz in the days
> when it was wonderfully chaired by Barry Took. You won't know the names as
> it had a British focus but this was a radio quiz that alternated questions
> on the week's news events to two teams. The chairman would humorously
> summarise each story before going on to the next one.

You may know that I'm a Europien since a while, not that I wanted to
bee one nor that I'm proud of it :)

> I gather that Aussies can be very sensitive about their population's
> origins as a prisoner colony. In one News Quiz episode the question was
> about British children copying accents they heard in Australian soap
> operas. The chairman (Took) summed up saying in an Australian accent that
> British children had been heard to change the emPHASSis on words, and to
> copy the Aussies in going *UP* at the end of a sentence ... which, he
> said, was quite surprising as most of them went down at the beginning of
> one to get there in the first place...! LOL. In a politically correct
> world one is probably not supposed to say things like that!

"Aussies" were the ones once put onto a jail island in the south. We
"Austrians" can look back a thousand years in history where we once were
the final border for muslim-attacks attempted to overrun Europe.

btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation
to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date
of retaliatian then.

> Going back to Monty Python, you would have to give some examples.

examples ?:
Sir Mr.Chairman asks her Majesty the Queen:

MC: Oh my Majesty, did you fart ?
QN: of course I farted, or do you think I smell like this all the time ?

some more:
It's very important to be not beeing seen.
How much can one eat (before explode) a vomit org
Singing 69 (I still LMFAO, as Beth would say it)

> I found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I
> remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular episode
> of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had been funny
> in the entire episode!

If you can't see see deep humour inside all the nasty words than
you might have lost its sense at all.

Even my English isn't a native one, I (partly) grew up in UK and
I later had a few High-degree semesters in US. And My native dialect
is 'Viennies' (particular German but most of pure old English and a
lot of French, German Jew (Jiddish) and my Grandfathers Gypsy). And
I also learned about "Jenish" (an old but still alive Gypsy dialect).

So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or ruled by
what Rod often see as a failure.
Languages (terms and their use) changed a lot during my lifetime.

So I can only laugh about things which are out of focus and abstract,
I cannot stop laughing about windoze and Loonix and all who think
that they can write any OS better than the two bloat/big-ones by
using C, C+++ and other HLL-shit.

I hope your parents once told you how to interprete nasty words.
Myself see nothing wrong with using such 'swear-words' to declare
the state of something.

BS is a well known abbreviation (at least in US).
M$-shit is a short cut for: sold over this planet much too often.
Loonix-shit was/is a (failed) attempt to do any better than M$.

We can hear all this so called swear-words like Fuck,Come,Pussy..
on radio-stations all the time on a daily base,.. so what ?

__
wolfgang

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:35:32 +0000
James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Now, let's get back to the joke. The Aristocrat's joke ...
>
> I looked it up and found it is a form of joke with something
> disgusting in the middle.
>

> [link]

>
> It seems rather stupid to me: vulgarity for the sake of it
> or for shock value, perhaps.

Haven't you ever watched Mr. Bean? Same thing, except the
Aristocrat's joke has a filthy center. Many British comedy
shows are based on laughing *at* someone: Fawlty Towers,
Are You Being Served?, The Benny Hill Show, Keeping Up
Appearances, Monty Python.

"'When you hear someone tell The Aristocrats,' Penn Jillette
observes, 'very clearly it’s the singer, not the song.'"

Haven't you ever seen Gilbert Gottfried deliver any joke ever?
It doesn't matter what joke he tells. Some people may be
laughing at his funny jokes, but everyone is laughing AT him.

Well, maybe someday, you'll find the humor in amongst
the vulgarity. Until then, I'll try to get back to
your other posts late tonight or maybe tomorrow afternoon.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 19/01/2016 13:09, James Harris wrote:
> On 19/01/2016 11:52, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
> [OT]

...

> but I loved the *glee* with which this Frenchman (possibly played by
> Cleese) took the opportunity to pour out his evidently long-held bile
> against the hated and despised English, and his delight that the stupid
> English just stood and listened to it! I can imagine him getting home to
> the wife later and telling her what a great day he'd had. Brilliant!

For anyone who does not know what I was referring to, above, someone has
clipped exactly that part of the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

James

[James Harris]

On 19/01/2016 20:46, wolfgang kern wrote:

[OT]

> btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation
> to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date
> of retaliatian then.

Have you seen the following? A preacher tells migrants that Europe's
hospitality is not due to compassion but because Europeans need to
increase their populations. He says that migrants should breed Muslim
children with European women (which many will see as permission to rape)
and that Muslims should go on to conquer Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295

Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in
bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we probably
expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, some who
come in will see compassion as weakness.

...

>> I found some of their stuff very funny, as above, but, by contrast, I
>> remember watching the credits go up at the end of one particular
>> episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus and realising that nothing had
>> been funny in the entire episode!
>
> If you can't see see deep humour inside all the nasty words than
> you might have lost its sense at all.

Nothing to do with offensive words. Monty Python sketches varied in how
funny they were.

> Even my English isn't a native one, I (partly) grew up in UK and
> I later had a few High-degree semesters in US. And My native dialect
> is 'Viennies' (particular German but most of pure old English and a
> lot of French, German Jew (Jiddish) and my Grandfathers Gypsy). And
> I also learned about "Jenish" (an old but still alive Gypsy dialect).
>
> So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or ruled by
> what Rod often see as a failure.

I don't follow. I cannot remember Rod commenting on your English?

James

[wolfgang kern]

James Harris wrote:

[OT]

>> btw: this refugies seem to be a long term planned sleeper installation
>> to become activated at the 500 years day of the shame and be the date
>> of retaliatian then.

;'retaliation'

> Have you seen the following? A preacher tells migrants that Europe's
> hospitality is not due to compassion but because Europeans need to
> increase their populations. He says that migrants should breed Muslim
> children with European women (which many will see as permission to rape)
> and that Muslims should go on to conquer Europe.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295
>
> Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in
> bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we probably
> expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly, some who
> come in will see compassion as weakness.

Everybody in Europe seem to know about it, but never say nor do anything
against it, just because this could be seen as racial hatered.
Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ?
...

> I don't follow. I cannot remember Rod commenting on your English?

Rod often show me my spelling errors :)
__
wolfgang

[James Harris]

On 20/01/2016 03:28, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:35:32 +0000
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Haven't you ever watched Mr. Bean?

Yes, though it was a long time ago.

> Same thing, except the
> Aristocrat's joke has a filthy center.

OK

> Many British comedy
> shows are based on laughing *at* someone: Fawlty Towers,
> Are You Being Served?, The Benny Hill Show, Keeping Up
> Appearances, Monty Python.

Agreed. And, strangely, British comedy is often about failure. National
psyche, perhaps! Brits seem to relish characters who are failures.
Americans seem much more positive.

Americans tend to laud their stars. Brits don't want those who are
successful to get above themselves. No wonder America is so successful!

Here's a fun example of British and American differences:


http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/this-vine-perfectly-sums-up-the-difference-between-the-us-an#.ja7kxd7Yq7

...

> Haven't you ever seen Gilbert Gottfried deliver any joke ever?
> It doesn't matter what joke he tells. Some people may be
> laughing at his funny jokes, but everyone is laughing AT him.

I hadn't heard of Gottfried. I checked Youtube for some of his videos. I
don't think I would like them. Google returns descriptions:

"See Gilbert's daughter nude"
"Gilbert reads 50 shades of grey"
"on Joan Rivers vagina"

That lot sounds absolutely awful!

I don't think I want to know any more about Gottfried but maybe you mean
he is naturally funny. I think that's true of Jackie Mason. He does,
IMO, go to far at times but he has the kind of voice that could say
something mundane and still get a laugh.

> Well, maybe someday, you'll find the humor in amongst
> the vulgarity.

I can usually see the humour but, and this is just a personal view,
think it is spoiled if set in vulgarity. It's a bit like seeing a good
meal on a dirty plate. I might see what the food looks like but not want
to eat it!

> Until then, I'll try to get back to
> your other posts late tonight or maybe tomorrow afternoon.

No problem.

James

[James Harris]

On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
> James Harris wrote:
>
> [OT]

...

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295
>>
>> Such hate speech is believed by some. There are great dangers in
>> bringing unknown masses to Europe and elsewhere. In the west we
>> probably expect people to appreciate the refuge they are shown. Sadly,
>> some who come in will see compassion as weakness.
>
> Everybody in Europe seem to know about it, but never say nor do anything
> against it, just because this could be seen as racial hatered.

Similar here. People who warn about the dangers of uncontrolled
immigration are sometimes called racist by those who want to welcome
anyone and everyone.

I see it like a house. We lock our front doors not because we hate our
neighbours (or other races) but because we want to protect our families.
We *do* let people in but only those we believe we can trust, not just
anyone who knocks.

> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? ....

I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which is
letting in lots of people who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe
for subjugation of the hosts' culture and more.

James

[wolfgang kern]

James Harris wrote:

[OT]

Meanwhile it's an open secret and every turkish youngster (even born
in Eorope as 3rd/4th generation with an AT/EU password) tells you
freely that we all once become turkish anyway.

My hope and a little experience with many 20 year old 'New-Austians'
is just that at least 30% will prefer our western stile of life ...

one of our former cancellor use to say:
"sooner or later we will demoralise them !" and he said this when
Austria was still occupied by the allied force against the 3rd-empire:
[this famous four in the jeep: russian/french/english/american]

1529 Vienne saved Europe from being overun by muslim (1st Turk siege)
1683 a polish knight saved Vienna and whole Europe from a 2nd attack.

1983: the infiltration of Europe by turkish immigrates began.
2029: target of taking over. Everyone Know it but who acts against ?

I myself will be to old then to do much more than curse the fools.
Officials may know it as well and perhaps they got a plan B for ...

__
wolfgang

[Bernhard Schornak]

A little bit short sighted?

1. What we have to face at the moment are the consequences of
George Walker Bush's crusade against his asserted "axis of
evil". His (pointless!) wars destroyed the fragile balance
in the Near East and Northern Africa and left an explosive
chaos.

2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of
civil wars between warlords supported by different forces,
including European countries, especially GB and France who
still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists
who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy
books, Russia and the USA.

3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like
those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from
wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta
and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon
as it is safe to return to their home countries.

4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in-
tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant,
less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma-
jority is not that much different from the host nations.

Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno-
phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees
surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down
refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out-
landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6>

We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice,
especially the presumption of innocence and the general right
to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights,
humanity is lost.


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:04:51 +0000

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20/01/2016 03:28, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:35:32 +0000
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Haven't you ever seen Gilbert Gottfried deliver any joke ever?
> > It doesn't matter what joke he tells. Some people may be
> > laughing at his funny jokes, but everyone is laughing AT him.
>
> I hadn't heard of Gottfried. I checked Youtube for some of his
> videos. I don't think I would like them. Google returns descriptions:
>
> "See Gilbert's daughter nude"
> "Gilbert reads 50 shades of grey"
> "on Joan Rivers vagina"
>
> That lot sounds absolutely awful!

Bad selection?

Other than the dirty aristocrats joke, I don't ever recall hearing
any other vulgar jokes by him. He's always on TV specials, so those
jokes can't be that dirty. Then, again, I haven't looked at what
Youtube pulled out of the gutter and trash for him.

His usual stick is he starts to tell a joke, diverts himself onto other
insane and random stuff that makes no sense whatsoever in regards to
the joke, all while screaming the random stuff and eventually the joke
to the audience in a very grating voice all while squinting. The jokes
are usually funny too, but not as funny as his performance, but the
combination puts people over the edge with laughter.

Also, Bob Saget, known as a nice and polite guy actor, had
a long running filthy comedy tour when no one even knew he
told dirty jokes ... So, maybe Gilbert did the same at some
low point in his career.


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

> [link]

I've seen it a number of times since it is a "cult classic"
here. That was three or four times more than the one time
it deserved to be viewed. It's not that funny IMO, but has
a few light-hearted chuckles. What I never got to see was
"Life of Brian," which I hear was a riot, if the viewer is
not a Christian. Unfortunately, everyone I knew had seen
it for some reason instead of the "Holy Grail."

Oh, what do you think about Rimmer's name on Red Dwarf?
That's vulgar, right?

Personally, I think the funniest things I've ever
seen are (all cartoons):

Ren & Stimpy "The Littlest Giant"
Beavis & Butthead "Pregnant Pause"
Venture Bros.

These were on U.S. TV.

The Venture Bros. is about the brothers being
failures, specifically, clones which keep dying.
But, I found it funny for two reasons. It had lots
of hidden U.S. culture references from the 1970s
through the 2000s. It was realistic, i.e.,
failure, unlike most other cartoons.

"The Littlest Giant" is about Stimpy being a giant,
but there are even larger giants.
http://renandstimpy.wikia.com/wiki/The_Littlest_Giant

"Pregnant Pause" is where where Beavis thinks he's
pregnant.
http://beavisandbutthead.wikia.com/wiki/Pregnant_Pause

Venture Bros.
http://www.adultswim.com/videos/the-venture-bros/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venture_Bros.


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:46:26 +0100
"wolfgang kern" <now...@never.at> wrote:
> James Harris replied:

> So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or
> ruled by what Rod often see as a failure.

?

Oh, yes, you do need to turn on an English spell checker. ;-)

> I cannot stop laughing about windoze and Loonix and all who think
> that they can write any OS better than the two bloat/big-ones by
> using C, C+++ and other HLL-shit.

Aw ... I'm hurt. (feigned) :-)

I have nothing against assembly, having coded 6502 and 80x86,
except that it's much easier and faster to code in C.

My OS project is halted, but it wasn't due to C, although one
problematic C compiler library did contribute to that.

BTW, those to whom you're laughing at for using C, C++, would be
everyone who has posted here since I started in 2006 or 2007,
except you. AFAIR, you're the only person who was developing
in assembly, unless we're going way back, before 2007. ;-)


Rod Pemberton

[wolfgang kern]

Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> So my view (and usage) of languges maybe not restricted or
>> ruled by what Rod often see as a failure.
> ?
> Oh, yes, you do need to turn on an English spell checker. ;-)

:) If I'd just reread what I typed before I hit the send button ...

>> I cannot stop laughing about windoze and Loonix and all who think
>> that they can write any OS better than the two bloat/big-ones by
>> using C, C+++ and other HLL-shit.

> Aw ... I'm hurt. (feigned) :-)

> I have nothing against assembly, having coded 6502 and 80x86,
> except that it's much easier and faster to code in C.

easier? (aka convenient?)
faster? (by using libraries?)
yeah, perhaps true if compared to AT&T Gas, but NASM and FASM need a
lot lesser keystrokes and are not restricted by calling conventions.

My Hex-coding style need lesser typing by magnitudes but it requires
'a bit more' brain activity.

> My OS project is halted, but it wasn't due to C, although one
> problematic C compiler library did contribute to that.

> BTW, those to whom you're laughing at for using C, C++, would be
> everyone who has posted here since I started in 2006 or 2007,
> except you. AFAIR, you're the only person who was developing
> in assembly, unless we're going way back, before 2007. ;-)

My opinion about HLL may be well known meanwhile ...

I'm not even sure for being the last machine code programmer, and much
less sure that noone else use ASM for OS kernels and hw-drivers.
__
wolfgang

[James Harris]

On 23/01/2016 16:04, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>
>
>> On 21/01/2016 20:48, wolfgang kern wrote:
>>>
>>> Will 2029 pass by without religous fanatics wipe out our cultur ? ....
>>
>> I don't know but Europe currently has a highly tolerant society which
>> is letting in lots of people
>> who are highly intolerant. That is a recipe for subjugation of the
>> hosts' culture and more.
>
>
> A little bit short sighted?
>
> 1. What we have to face at the moment are the consequences of
> George Walker Bush's crusade against his asserted "axis of
> evil". His (pointless!) wars destroyed the fragile balance
> in the Near East and Northern Africa and left an explosive
> chaos.

I am no fan of GW Bush. Or of war, for that matter. But I have to point
out that Saddam Hussein's regime had dropped chemical/biological weapons
on villages of Kurds (e.g. 5000 killed in Halabja). There has to be
something wrong if a dictator uses such weapons to slaughter innocent
men, women and children and yet other nations are prepared to stand aside.

It is true that Bush & co did not go in in respect of such weapons but
finally, much later, went in after WMDs which weren't there. But, then
again, Hussein did play pride games with weapons inspectors.

While still not justifying the Iraq war I did also see the joy with
which Iraqi people greeted the destruction of Hussein's statue,
indicating how much they must have hated to live under his regime. I
also saw the courage Iraqis displayed when, even though some bombing of
polling queues was likely, people queued up to cast a vote for the first
time in their lives.

Perhaps the failure in Iraq is as much to do with lack of planning for
what would happen after the dictator fell. The western powers thought
that the Iraqi people themselves would form a stable government.

> 2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of
> civil wars between warlords supported by different forces,
> including European countries, especially GB and France who
> still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists
> who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy
> books, Russia and the USA.

I don't think it's right that most are fleeing war. From what I have
found it seems that most people (from 50 up to as many as 95 percent or
maybe even more, depending on how it is reckoned) who are migrating are
looking for a better life. I don't blame them at all for that, by the
way, but we need to call a spade a spade.

Even those who really have fled from war or persecution do have safe
havens nearer home.

> 3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like
> those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from
> wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta
> and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon
> as it is safe to return to their home countries.

Of course, genuine refugees should be given safety. It would be good if
it was, at least by default, temporary shelter until they could return
to their homes.

But I don't think that is what is happening. From the reports I have
seen and read, most are moving to better their lives (which is quite
understandable) and most want to stay.

> 4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in-
> tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant,
> less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma-
> jority is not that much different from the host nations.

I agree in part but I would also point out that, by their nature, the
intolerant ones tend to dominate, unless there is an effective superior
power to keep them from imposing their will on others.

> Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno-
> phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees
> surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down
> refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out-
> landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6>

Agreed. That behaviour towards immigrants of any kind - whether refugees
or economic migrants - is completely unacceptable.

> We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice,
> especially the presumption of innocence and the general right
> to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights,
> humanity is lost.

Please be aware that in all of what I have said I have been talking
about saving life (and other things). Not because I am partisan but IMO
the UK government has the right policy in 1. giving funds to support
people in camps near their homes and 2. bringing the most needy safely
and directly from those camps to homes in the UK.

The UK approach helps stop unsafe migrations, supports poorer people
(who cannot afford to pay people traffickers), avoids money going to
criminal gangs, and gives the UK a chance to try to avoid importing
terrorists.

The German/EU approach, on the other hand, does the opposite of all
those things. It encourages unsafe migration, gives preference to those
who can afford to make the journey, encourages payment to unscrupulous
traffickers, and gives Europe much more chance of importing terrorism.

James

[James Harris]

On 26/01/2016 10:47, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
> Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

>> I have nothing against assembly, having coded 6502 and 80x86,
>> except that it's much easier and faster to code in C.
>
> easier? (aka convenient?) faster? (by using libraries?) yeah, perhaps
> true if compared to AT&T Gas, but NASM and FASM need a lot lesser
> keystrokes and are not restricted by calling conventions.

When I migrated a lot of code to C one thing I liked is that the
compiler will handle pushes and pops around function calls. Keeping
pushes and pops matched while only saving those I needed to was always a
bit of a pain in raw assembly.

James

[James Harris]

On 25/01/2016 23:29, Rod Pemberton wrote:

OT

> Oh, what do you think about Rimmer's name on Red Dwarf?
> That's vulgar, right?

Do you mean his name, "Arnold Rimmer", or what he is called by the rest
of the crew behind his back?

If the latter, I had never thought of it as especially rude. We have
discussed "smeg" before - a made-up word that can be used before the TV
watershed to take the place of a swearword. As for the "head" part
perhaps that could be meant to be worse than I realised. I had never
thought of it that way. In the UK a "petrol head" is someone who is very
keen on cars. So I can only guess that "head" is not meant to be
anything ruder. Just a guess, though.

James

[James Harris]

On 25/01/2016 22:48, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:04:51 +0000
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> That lot sounds absolutely awful!
>
> Bad selection?

Yes, possibly. They were just things that appeared on the first page
that Google returned.

James

[Rod Pemberton]

I meant the former, the last name, which is a disgusting sexual act.
But, the latter is too now that you brought it up. ;-)


Rod Pemberton

[wolfgang kern]

James Harris wrote:

> ...
>>> I have nothing against assembly, having coded 6502 and 80x86,
>>> except that it's much easier and faster to code in C.

>> easier? (aka convenient?) faster? (by using libraries?) yeah, perhaps
>> true if compared to AT&T Gas, but NASM and FASM need a lot lesser
>> keystrokes and are not restricted by calling conventions.

> When I migrated a lot of code to C one thing I liked is that the
> compiler will handle pushes and pops around function calls. Keeping
> pushes and pops matched while only saving those I needed to was always
> a bit of a pain in raw assembly.

Sure, ASM and machine code require that you keep track of the stack
all the time by either use pen on paper or just use your brain. ;)

I see your point, but this mean that your functions use parameters
on stack rather than in registers, and this is exactly what I call
redundant bloat production.
__
wolfgang

[James Harris]

On 27/01/2016 22:31, Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

> I meant the former, the last name, which is a disgusting sexual act.

I didn't know that. But it seems it is a normal surname too.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Rimmer

It seems to be a name based on an occupation, as are slater, tyler,
cooper, fletcher etc.

James

[James Harris]

On 28/01/2016 10:54, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
> James Harris wrote:

...

>> When I migrated a lot of code to C one thing I liked is that the
>> compiler will handle pushes and pops around function calls. Keeping
>> pushes and pops matched while only saving those I needed to was always
>> a bit of a pain in raw assembly.
>
> Sure, ASM and machine code require that you keep track of the stack all
> the time by either use pen on paper or just use your brain. ;)

I was very careful but I still found that mismatched pushes and pops
were one of the commonest sources of bugs. Perhaps that's because after
each edit an asm programmer needs to see if additional or fewer
registers need to be saved and restored, and adjust prologue and
epilogue code accordingly.

In order to make sure my asm code pushes and pops matched I couldn't
even guess at how many times I have mentally enumerated things like A,
B, SI, DI, reading the code up in one place and down in the other. (A
and B are what I said in my head for AX and BX or their 32-bit equivalents.)

> I see your point, but this mean that your functions use parameters on
> stack rather than in registers, and this is exactly what I call
> redundant bloat production.

AIUI compilers can do inter-procedural register allocation. So they
should be able to pass some parameters in registers. But I've never
compiled with that enabled.

Speaking of register allocation, one thing I dislike is how compilers
use x86 registers. They usually use the 'wrong' register for a certain
task (even though the 'right' register is available). And I don't like
HLL caller and callee save rules. In asm code I tend to save everything
in the callee.

James

[Bernhard Schornak]

The problem with helping democracy to see the light of day is that
any help from outside destabilises long grown cultural, social and
political structures. This might work in countries where democracy
was replaced by an absolute ruler and is "re-imported", but surely
not in countries with tribal structures and poorly educated people
who uprate religion higher than knowledge. It's not that they were
"uneducated" - they just grew up with different values and have to
learn how to handle a new life in a secular environment. Turkey is
a good example for the time it takes to overcome grown structures,
if you want to replace them by a secular ("laical") system.

>> 2. Most of the people trying to flee to Europe are victims of
>> civil wars between warlords supported by different forces,
>> including European countries, especially GB and France who
>> still try to control former colonies, religuous extremists
>> who claim to fight for the only true version of their holy
>> books, Russia and the USA.
>
> I don't think it's right that most are fleeing war. From what I have found it seems that most people
> (from 50 up to as many as 95 percent or maybe even more, depending on how it is reckoned) who are
> migrating are looking for a better life. I don't blame them at all for that, by the way, but we need
> to call a spade a spade.
>
> Even those who really have fled from war or persecution do have safe havens nearer home.

Right, *but*: The nearest hosts can't handle an unlimited quantity
of refugees. Turkey hosts about 2.5 Million Syrians, which is more
than twice as much as the *total sum* of all asylum seekers in the
EU (who allegedly "flooded" Europe).

Here are some numbers and facts:

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

especially

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#Origins_and_motivations

Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted
by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because
the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really
that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed
by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in
Syria!"?

Those who *do not* seek shelter from wars or political suppression
("refugees driven by poverty") are immigrants, not asylum seekers.
These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be
limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense
to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing
they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently.

>> 3. People who seek shelter from wars are not immigrants (like
>> those getting a Green Card for the USA) - people flee from
>> wars to save their life, so we have to apply the UN Charta
>> and treat them as asylum seekers who will leave us as soon
>> as it is safe to return to their home countries.
>
> Of course, genuine refugees should be given safety. It would be good if it was, at least by default,
> temporary shelter until they could return to their homes.
>
> But I don't think that is what is happening. From the reports I have seen and read, most are moving
> to better their lives (which is quite understandable) and most want to stay.

There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create
jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as
we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should
not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty".

>> 4. Those who seek for asylum should not be stigmatised as in-
>> tolerant per se. A very small quantity will be intolerant,
>> less than ten percent might be, but the *overwhelming* ma-
>> jority is not that much different from the host nations.
>
> I agree in part but I would also point out that, by their nature, the intolerant ones tend to
> dominate, unless there is an effective superior power to keep them from imposing their will on others.

Agreed. That is why democracy is the most reasonable compromise to
fulfill the wishes of the majority of all people in a country. Un-
fortunately, real democracy is a /model/ we still strive for...

>> Just the five cents from a person who has seen too much xeno-
>> phobic hatred throughout the years. Here in Germany, refugees
>> surely are less intolerant than racist Germans who burnt down
>> refugee camps and killed refugees just because they are "out-
>> landers". <http://tinyurl.com/hacl7s6>
>
> Agreed. That behaviour towards immigrants of any kind - whether refugees or economic migrants - is
> completely unacceptable.

Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in
Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were
taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can
happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them.

>> We should remember some basic rules of Democracy and Justice,
>> especially the presumption of innocence and the general right
>> to live a humane life - if we start to question human rights,
>> humanity is lost.
>
> Please be aware that in all of what I have said I have been talking about saving life (and other
> things). Not because I am partisan but IMO the UK government has the right policy in 1. giving funds
> to support people in camps near their homes and 2. bringing the most needy safely and directly from
> those camps to homes in the UK.
>
> The UK approach helps stop unsafe migrations, supports poorer people (who cannot afford to pay
> people traffickers), avoids money going to criminal gangs, and gives the UK a chance to try to avoid
> importing terrorists.
>
> The German/EU approach, on the other hand, does the opposite of all those things. It encourages
> unsafe migration, gives preference to those who can afford to make the journey, encourages payment
> to unscrupulous traffickers, and gives Europe much more chance of importing terrorism.

If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper
direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge
growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along
with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed
with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders,
so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate.
More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who
are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over
at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be
errected).

The German approach is kind of pragmatic. Millions of refugees are
moving towards Europe and we have to handle this stream regardless
of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot
tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the
contingent all European countries together are willing to let into
their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries
at war is nothing else than premediated murder.

I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as
well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves
for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two
faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the
EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported
wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer
because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes
at the cost of losing another.

[James Harris]

On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:

...

>> Perhaps the failure in Iraq is as much to do with lack of planning for
>> what would happen after the
>> dictator fell. The western powers thought that the Iraqi people
>> themselves would form a stable
>> government.
>
>
> The problem with helping democracy to see the light of day is that
> any help from outside destabilises long grown cultural, social and
> political structures. This might work in countries where democracy
> was replaced by an absolute ruler and is "re-imported", but surely
> not in countries with tribal structures and poorly educated people
> who uprate religion higher than knowledge. It's not that they were
> "uneducated" - they just grew up with different values and have to
> learn how to handle a new life in a secular environment. Turkey is
> a good example for the time it takes to overcome grown structures,
> if you want to replace them by a secular ("laical") system.

Good points.

...

> Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted
> by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because
> the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really
> that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed
> by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in
> Syria!"?

The numbers game that European States are playing sounds like a bidding
war. "We offer to take N people. How many will you take? Can we bargain
the numbers up or down?" etc. ISTM they offer to take certain numbers of
people as a negotiating position as if people are like quantities of a
product.

I don't agree with that approach at all. In my view - and I am not
claiming anything other than a personal view - people should be
_brought_ to Europe and given support based on two things: need and
trustworthiness.

By "need" I mean that European governments should bring people from the
trouble zones based on need and their ability to house and protect such
people, not based on a predetermined quantity. Basing on need would
favour women, children the sick and elderly etc, at least where they
could not get the support they need in the regions where they come from.
As the Syrian war has gone on so long children's schooling is key so
that there is not a "lost generation" who miss out on all education.

By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens,
governments should only bring in people they feel they can trust to
behave lawfully.

IMV governments should do what is necessary to fix the problems that
people are fleeing from, and should do what is necessary to support
those who flee war so they can remain in the region near their homes. If
governments resist sending money to help those people they should
consider the cost against that of taking the people to Europe.

I would stop people migrating by their own means. That means being tough
at the start and I don't think governments have the political courage
necessary. But it would save lives. And it would protect existing
European residents from danger - a prime purpose of a government.

Because lots of people are on the move, such a change of policy would
have to be well publicised and there would have to be a cut-off day:
Keep current policy until a certain date. After that, people would only
be taken from near their homes. And they *would* be turned back if they
tried to get into Europe directly. That means naval patrols to prevent
people from leaving the relative safety of land for the open sea.

> Those who *do not* seek shelter from wars or political suppression
> ("refugees driven by poverty") are immigrants, not asylum seekers.

Yes.

> These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be
> limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense
> to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing
> they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently.

Absolutely. Europe can welcome inward immigration but it should be based
on need, not just on taking anyone who arrives. Because of where it is
and its endless coast Greece is in the 'firing line'.


...

> There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create
> jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as
> we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should
> not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty".

That sounds good but how would you create those jobs?

I have to say I think most genuine refugees are those fleeing war or
famine rather than poverty.

...

> Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in
> Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were
> taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can
> happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them.

As the governments are the ones with the bigger amount of power do you
think that we are anywhere near the governments becoming xenophobic? I
have seen small pockets of anger but nothing widespread.


...

> If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper
> direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge
> growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along
> with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed
> with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders,
> so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate.
> More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who
> are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over
> at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be
> errected).

Open borders are nice to have but they lack security. Sometimes, the
inconveniences of controls are needed in order to provide safety.

> ... Millions of refugees are moving towards Europe

Are you sure they are refugees? I think most people travelling are
economic migrants. I don't blame them for migrating, by the way. If I
lived in a poor country and I heard that Europe had opened its doors to
any who made the journey I would definitely consider moving myself and
my family to Europe. But I do blame Europe for issuing the invitation.

As for those who began as genuine refugees - mainly those fleeing war in
Syria - consider what has happened to them. They have had to flee their
homes due to war. At that time they were genuine refugees. Many of them
would have ended up in a safe place - possibly at a refugee camp - but
then they decided to make the journey through a number of safe countries
so that they can get to their preferred country in Europe. IMV once they
leave a safe place they are no longer refugees but migrants. Again, I
don't blame them for migrating. It must be awful being in a refugee
camp. But I don't think someone who travels from one safe place to
another should be considered as a refugee.

> and we have to handle this stream regardless
> of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot
> tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the
> contingent all European countries together are willing to let into
> their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries
> at war is nothing else than premediated murder.

As mentioned, people are migrating through lots of safe places to get to
where they want to go. They need to have safe and adequate places to
shelter nearer home.

> I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as
> well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves
> for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two
> faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the
> EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported
> wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer
> because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes
> at the cost of losing another.

You mean the upcoming UK referendum? Yes, it is really interesting. I
see the outcome in a different way to you as I very much want the UK to
leave the EU club but I also want it to be a better friend and neighbour
to the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU does not mean withdrawing
from Europe! The EU organisation is not the only way for people to
cooperate.

As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel
free to say if the Brits are a constant source of irritation! I too see
British politicians acting selfishly and not agreeing with the body of
EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside!

James

[James Harris]

On 29/02/2016 19:02, James Harris wrote:

All OT

...

> By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens,
> governments should only bring in people they feel they can trust to
> behave lawfully.

On that point, a NATO general, Philip Breedlove has said the European
migration "masks the movement of criminals, terrorists and foreign
fighters" into the continent.

That's no surprise. People have been warning for over a year that ISIL
stated their intention to flood Europe with their jihadis. What is a
surprise, at least to me, is that politicians are letting it happen.

The terrorism being imported now may not become apparent for some time
to come. It could remain dormant for years, until individual terror
cells feel the time is right to attack another European city.

The report is on the CNN website.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/02/europe/nato-general-migrants-terror

James

[Bernhard Schornak]

I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because
many of them were recruited in European countries. Hence, they
do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via
Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if
they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and
the Paris massacre.

If you read the entire CNN post, it also warned from a growing
'islamophobia' in Europe (which, thanks to Mr. Trump, might be
spread all over the USA) and calls the Russian contribution in
Syria *destabilising* (as I did).

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>

<snip - consensus>

>> Question is: How will we handle "limitations" like the one enacted
>> by the Austrian parliament. Is it okay to deny asylum just because
>> the asylum seeker was not amongst the first 37,500 - are we really
>> that "Christian" to tell the 37,501 and up "Go home and get killed
>> by ISIS, Assad, NATO, Russia, Peshmerga or other forces engaged in
>> Syria!"?
>
> The numbers game that European States are playing sounds like a bidding war. "We offer to take N
> people. How many will you take? Can we bargain the numbers up or down?" etc. ISTM they offer to take
> certain numbers of people as a negotiating position as if people are like quantities of a product.
>
> I don't agree with that approach at all. In my view - and I am not claiming anything other than a
> personal view - people should be _brought_ to Europe and given support based on two things: need and
> trustworthiness.
>
> By "need" I mean that European governments should bring people from the trouble zones based on need
> and their ability to house and protect such people, not based on a predetermined quantity. Basing on
> need would favour women, children the sick and elderly etc, at least where they could not get the
> support they need in the regions where they come from. As the Syrian war has gone on so long
> children's schooling is key so that there is not a "lost generation" who miss out on all education.
>
> By "trustworthiness" I mean that, in order to protect existing citizens, governments should only
> bring in people they feel they can trust to behave lawfully.
>
> IMV governments should do what is necessary to fix the problems that people are fleeing from, and
> should do what is necessary to support those who flee war so they can remain in the region near
> their homes. If governments resist sending money to help those people they should consider the cost
> against that of taking the people to Europe.

Agreement until here.

> I would stop people migrating by their own means. That means being tough at the start and I don't
> think governments have the political courage necessary. But it would save lives. And it would
> protect existing European residents from danger - a prime purpose of a government.
>
> Because lots of people are on the move, such a change of policy would have to be well publicised and
> there would have to be a cut-off day: Keep current policy until a certain date. After that, people
> would only be taken from near their homes. And they *would* be turned back if they tried to get into
> Europe directly. That means naval patrols to prevent people from leaving the relative safety of land
> for the open sea.

I agree there has to be a change and problems have to be solved at the
origin, that is: In Afghanistan, Iran, Irak, Syria, et cetera. It will
cost less than 'handling' millions of asylum seekers and immigrants.

I doubt we ever will be able to stop immigrants from trying everything
to reach Europe as their assumed 'promised land' (as there's no way to
keep poor unemployed from Mexico out of the USA or Palestinians out of
Israel). The only solution is to end all civil wars and riots and help
to restore destroyed infrastructures as soon as possible.

>> These should be handled as immigrants, and this "stream" should be
>> limited individually by each host country - it does not make sense
>> to force poorer countries, e.g. Greece, to host immigrants knowing
>> they are not able to feed their own population sufficiently.
>
> Absolutely. Europe can welcome inward immigration but it should be based on need, not just on taking
> anyone who arrives. Because of where it is and its endless coast Greece is in the 'firing line'.

Yes. Moreover, we already have a constant 'stream' of European workers
moving to countries with higher income. In the long run, it undermines
minimum wages and leads to the destruction of welfare systems in those
countries with higher GDP. The only solution is *one* common level for
all members of the EU, so there's no reason to work in another country
just because you get more money there for the *same* work you could do
in your home country.

>> There's a simple solution for "refugees driven by poverty": Create
>> jobs in their home country and they will not come here. As long as
>> we destroy the infrastructures of Third World countries, we should
>> not complain about masses of "refugees driven by poverty".
>
> That sounds good but how would you create those jobs?
>
> I have to say I think most genuine refugees are those fleeing war or famine rather than poverty.

As in German, English does not differentiate between those fleeing war
and those fleeing from starvation. We produce about twice as much food
as required to feed all people around the globe. In other words: Greed
is the cause why millions of people starve - we prefer to burn food as
energy source rather than to give it to those who needed it. Is profit
worth human life?

>> Yes - xenophobia is a world wide phenomenon. People who grew up in
>> Germany might be more 'sensitive' for such things, because we were
>> taught how fast things may get out of control and worst things can
>> happen if we do not stand up and try to prevent them.
>
> As the governments are the ones with the bigger amount of power do you think that we are anywhere
> near the governments becoming xenophobic? I have seen small pockets of anger but nothing widespread.

Look at the political decisions in Poland (where I was born, so I care
about even if I grew up in Germany), Hungary and many other Eastern EU
members - they *are* driven by xenophobia (if not racism). That's more
than just 'small pockets'.

>> If the UK did what you told, it was the first step into the proper
>> direction. What is happening in entire Europe at the moment - huge
>> growth of tendencies towards nationalistic separation coming along
>> with a shift to rightmost political positions - should be observed
>> with open eyes. I want to live in a country without *any* borders,
>> so re-errecting toppled turnpikes is not the thing I'd appreciate.
>> More over, closing a country's borders is no solution - people who
>> are eager to get inside will bypass points of entry and sneak over
>> at "soft" borders (for example dense woods where no walls might be
>> errected).
>
> Open borders are nice to have but they lack security. Sometimes, the inconveniences of controls are
> needed in order to provide safety.

How much 'safety' do you expect you can buy with closing all once open
borders? What you get are commmercial deficits plus division of entire
people who cannot get freely from one place inside the EU to another -
turning European solidarity down for a questionable increase in safety
is a huge step back into dark ages.

>> ... Millions of refugees are moving towards Europe
>
> Are you sure they are refugees? I think most people travelling are economic migrants. I don't blame
> them for migrating, by the way. If I lived in a poor country and I heard that Europe had opened its
> doors to any who made the journey I would definitely consider moving myself and my family to Europe.
> But I do blame Europe for issuing the invitation.
>
> As for those who began as genuine refugees - mainly those fleeing war in Syria - consider what has
> happened to them. They have had to flee their homes due to war. At that time they were genuine
> refugees. Many of them would have ended up in a safe place - possibly at a refugee camp - but then
> they decided to make the journey through a number of safe countries so that they can get to their
> preferred country in Europe. IMV once they leave a safe place they are no longer refugees but
> migrants. Again, I don't blame them for migrating. It must be awful being in a refugee camp. But I
> don't think someone who travels from one safe place to another should be considered as a refugee.

Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From
these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two
other countries are too far away to travel to Europe.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps

As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those
fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon
as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the
victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis
and other causes of life threatening situations.

>> and we have to handle this stream regardless
>> of their origin or number. They all are human beings, so we cannot
>> tell the (x+1)th refugee "Go back and get killed!", where x is the
>> contingent all European countries together are willing to let into
>> their territory - forcing people to stay in or return to countries
>> at war is nothing else than premediated murder.
>
> As mentioned, people are migrating through lots of safe places to get to where they want to go. They
> need to have safe and adequate places to shelter nearer home.

Agreed.

>> I've delivered a lot of stuff in Britain and I love the country as
>> well as the people. I really hope they will not isolate themselves
>> for speculative and questionable economic benefits. Coins have two
>> faces. The downside of independence: Export and import from/to the
>> EU might be taxed like wares from overseas, so prices for imported
>> wares grow and EU countries might not buy British wares any longer
>> because they are too expensive. Most times getting one thing comes
>> at the cost of losing another.
>
> You mean the upcoming UK referendum? Yes, it is really interesting. I see the outcome in a different
> way to you as I very much want the UK to leave the EU club but I also want it to be a better friend
> and neighbour to the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU does not mean withdrawing from Europe!
> The EU organisation is not the only way for people to cooperate.
>
> As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel free to say if the Brits are
> a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting selfishly and not agreeing
> with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside!

So you want more solidarity through more division. It's an interesting
concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be-
tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany
are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice
as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other
EU members:

http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm
a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is
not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany,
but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;)

The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act
fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to
obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are
suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do
accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible
quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get
the maximum output for all.

I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying
to replace solidarity with division. As long as people are divided, it
is easy to make them act against each other: Poorer against less poor,
workers against intellectuals, Christians against Muslims, 'Inlanders'
against 'Outlanders', and so on. Definitely no solution for our *real*
problem global warming and our destructive abuse of natural resources,
but good for huge profits with vapour products like betting on winning
court cases "company X versus state Y" we will get if we sign TTIPs.

http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4853915-silent-revolution-ttip

Today, the most money is not earned with production of real items, but
with virtual 'wares' you can bet on rather than to perform real *work*
to earn it. As long as we follow this path, things will get worse, and
it is a matter of time until our species is history.

[James Harris]

On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

[All OT]

> I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because
> many of them were recruited in European countries.

Unfortunately, there is more than one source of jihadi infiltration. For
example, one (or maybe two) of the Paris attackers had arrived as
refugees in Greece, IIRC.

ISIL has said it would flood Europe with thousands of its fighters. That
is very credible.

> Hence, they
> do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via
> Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if
> they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and
> the Paris massacre.

I don't think they need to risk much. Much of the people trafficking is
apparently done by fellow ISIL supporters (esp to Libya). Jihadists can
merge with other migrants prior to crossing the Mediterranean. And,
sadly, it is probably the women and children who suffer most from drowning.

James

[James Harris]

On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>> On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

[All OT]

...

> Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From
> these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two
> other countries are too far away to travel to Europe.
>
> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps

I don't think there are refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. AIUI the Saudis
have refused to accept anyone.

IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by
policing. There may be an opportunity there to employ people living in
the camps.

> As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those
> fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon
> as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the
> victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis
> and other causes of life threatening situations.

Yes. Again, though, ISTM better to help the vast majority of people in
camps in the region.

Re. funding them it might be good to go through the UNHCR that you
linked to, above, rather than paying countries like Turkey...!

...

>> As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel
>> free to say if the Brits are
>> a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting
>> selfishly and not agreeing
>> with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside!
>
>
> So you want more solidarity through more division.

I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union. The
UK doesn't. 2. Some other countries join the EU for economic reasons but
don't really want to merge into another country. 3. And some countries,
such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate.

I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully
protectionist, undemocratic supporter of vested interests and its
instincts are continually to acquire and centralise more and more power
to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out of touch and
extravagant. For example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are
paid more than the UK's prime minister, the EC president uses a private
jet, and they are about to debate paying over 100,000 euros (per annum?)
for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to
me to be absolutely disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes.

I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way
with continental neighbours and friends.

The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since
gradually become much more than that. It's like joining a tennis club
that over time changes into a rugby club. Ok if you like rugby but not
if you prefer tennis.

> It's an interesting
> concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be-
> tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany
> are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice
> as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other
> EU members:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
>
> I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm
> a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is
> not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany,
> but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;)

I think people of continental Europe feel more a family bond with other
continental states than the UK does. Continuing the analogy, I
personally see Scotland and England as family and I see France, Germany,
Poland etc as friends.

That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we
share a home with family. Friends don't live with us but we visit each
other often.

> The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act
> fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to
> obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are
> suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do
> accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible
> quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get
> the maximum output for all.

I think that's a big problem with the EU. People see it as the only
option and thus support it despite all its faults.

Many don't know of its faults but support it because the idea of
European harmony sounds good. But the reality of what the EU does is far
different.

> I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying
> to replace solidarity with division.

I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
Brits would still want to work together, trade, and cooperate with
European neighbours. What many of us don't want is lack of democracy and
rule from a supranational government.

> As long as people are divided, it
> is easy to make them act against each other: Poorer against less poor,
> workers against intellectuals, Christians against Muslims, 'Inlanders'
> against 'Outlanders', and so on. Definitely no solution for our *real*
> problem global warming and our destructive abuse of natural resources,
> but good for huge profits with vapour products like betting on winning
> court cases "company X versus state Y" we will get if we sign TTIPs.
>
> http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4853915-silent-revolution-ttip

Thanks for the link. Yes, much of the EU is good for large multinational
corporations,
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU,
but it is, by design, bad for smaller competitors.

James

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>
> [All OT]
>
>> I don't think jihadists will travel as refugees simply because
>> many of them were recruited in European countries.
>
> Unfortunately, there is more than one source of jihadi infiltration. For example, one (or maybe two)
> of the Paris attackers had arrived as refugees in Greece, IIRC.
>
> ISIL has said it would flood Europe with thousands of its fighters. That is very credible.

Of course, but: Many of them are European Citizens and ISIL
has almost unlimited funds to provide its members with fake
passports and grant them safe passages to Europe. They will
not risk valuable lifes of suizide squads in dhingies which
cross the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Greece.

>> Hence, they
>> do not need to risk their life with a never ending journey via
>> Greece. They will book a passage back to their home country if
>> they plan attacks like those responsible for Charlie Hebdo and
>> the Paris massacre.
>
> I don't think they need to risk much. Much of the people trafficking is apparently done by fellow
> ISIL supporters (esp to Libya). Jihadists can merge with other migrants prior to crossing the
> Mediterranean. And, sadly, it is probably the women and children who suffer most from drowning.

See above. They do not need to save money and can take safe
routes via plane or ferry.

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>> On 29/02/2016 08:26, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>
> [All OT]
>

>> Are camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia really safe places? From
>> these three countries, refugees only flee from Turkey, because the two
>> other countries are too far away to travel to Europe.
>>
>> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps
>
> I don't think there are refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. AIUI the Saudis have refused to accept anyone.

Of course - they support ISIL, so they surely will not host
ISIL's victims.

> IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by policing. There may be an
> opportunity there to employ people living in the camps.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon

Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are
Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees
in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB.

I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about.

>> As I told, it is not about those fleeing from poverty, but about those
>> fleeing from wars. It's not just a problem of Turkey, Irak and Lebanon
>> as neighbour states. All people around the globe should care about the
>> victims of (civil) wars like we care about victims of floods, tsunamis
>> and other causes of life threatening situations.
>
> Yes. Again, though, ISTM better to help the vast majority of people in camps in the region.
>
> Re. funding them it might be good to go through the UNHCR that you linked to, above, rather than
> paying countries like Turkey...!

As I stated somewhere else: I don't like that deal. It is a
foul compromise, but the only solution all European leaders
could agree to.

>>> As I see you are in Augsburg how does all this appear in Germany? Feel
>>> free to say if the Brits are
>>> a constant source of irritation! I too see British politicians acting
>>> selfishly and not agreeing
>>> with the body of EU opinion, and lots of other faults beside!
>>
>> So you want more solidarity through more division.
>
> I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union. The UK doesn't. 2. Some other
> countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to merge into another country. 3.
> And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate.

That's picking the raisins from the cake (belonging to all)
and leaving the remains for all others. That's the opposite
of solidarity. Especially because the London Stock Exchange
and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
higher your profit).

> I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully protectionist, undemocratic
> supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to acquire and centralise more and
> more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out of touch and extravagant. For
> example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than the UK's prime minister, the EC
> president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over 100,000 euros (per annum?)
> for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to me to be absolutely
> disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes.

You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money
for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your
royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 %
of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole.

> I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way with continental neighbours
> and friends.
>
> The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since gradually become much more than
> that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a rugby club. Ok if you like rugby
> but not if you prefer tennis.

Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
Union like the UK or USA. The future will show that we will
not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.

>> It's an interesting
>> concept, but I doubt it will work. Europe lives through solidarity be-
>> tween all (richer and poorer) members - France, Great Britain, Germany
>> are those who pay the most money (where Germany's share is about twice
>> as much as GB's share), but they also benefit much more than all other
>> EU members:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/j4doq3k
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
>>
>> I for myself live in Augsburg, but I'm born in Gdansk (Danzig), so I'm
>> a Polish guy with German origins living in Bavaria - like Scottland is
>> not England, but part of Great Britain and UK, Bavaria is not Germany,
>> but part of the Federal Republic of Germany... ;)
>
> I think people of continental Europe feel more a family bond with other continental states than the
> UK does. Continuing the analogy, I personally see Scotland and England as family and I see France,
> Germany, Poland etc as friends.
>
> That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we share a home with family.
> Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often.

That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point
of view, where all life in the universe respects each other
and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit
for all involved forces. What is wishful thinking right now
might become our only way to survive in the near future.

Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive...

>> The concept of one United Europe only lives as long as all members act
>> fair and solidary, finding *compromises* rather than forcing others to
>> obey one-sided decisions granting privileges to a few while others are
>> suffering. I dislike EU bureaucracy deep in my heart (feeling), but do
>> accept there's no other way to keep everything at the highest possible
>> quality level (reason). Compromises require sacrifices for some to get
>> the maximum output for all.
>
> I think that's a big problem with the EU. People see it as the only option and thus support it
> despite all its faults.
>
> Many don't know of its faults but support it because the idea of European harmony sounds good. But
> the reality of what the EU does is far different.

Not for my generation (I was born 1956). Generations before
mine were formed by the war, generations 1980++ were formed
by selfishness taught in TV spots and internet communities.

>> I think there is a strong movement in *all* European countries, trying
>> to replace solidarity with division.
>
> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division". Brits would still want to work
> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of us don't want is lack of
> democracy and rule from a supranational government.

You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?

<snip>

I think we will start an endless loop, so I suggest to come
to an end here - it takes a lot of time to write replies on
topics, if I have to look up a lot of special terms I never
used before. I am specialised in programming stuff, ancient
history and walkthroughs... ;)

[James Harris]

On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

[All OT]

Notwithstanding your desire to bring this to an end, I will respond in
some places. Don't feel that you need to reply.

...

>> IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by
>> policing. There may be an
>> opportunity there to employ people living in the camps.
>
>
> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon
>
> Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are
> Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees
> in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB.
>
> I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about.

I guess you mean that the number of people is too great for the Lebanon
police force to handle. That is true. But _everything_ about such high
volumes of people makes them too many for Lebanon to handle. There are
too many to house, too many to feed, too many to care for medically, too
many to school properly etc.

What I suggested was to use some of the refugees to help with policing.
That would not just provide some security but it would also give the
people so employed an opportunity to earn a _little_ bit of money rather
than just relying on handouts.

I would not suggest employing people as irregular police in the long
term because that would be open to corruption. But I would get them to
carry out basic policing duties for a while and then come off and let
others take over.

Basic policing could be about writing and collating reports of problems
in the communities. The regular Lebanese trained police would take any
actions needed.

...

>>> So you want more solidarity through more division.
>>
>> I don't see it that way. 1. Some countries *want* ever closer union.
>> The UK doesn't. 2. Some other
>> countries join the EU for economic reasons but don't really want to
>> merge into another country. 3.
>> And some countries, such as the UK, want to trade but not to integrate.
>
>
> That's picking the raisins from the cake (belonging to all)
> and leaving the remains for all others. That's the opposite
> of solidarity.

Not at all. The EU trades around the world without requiring its
worldwide trading partners to join a political union. And that trade is
not "raisins" just for the country that trades with the EU; it benefits
both sides.

The EU model is ultimately unsustainable. Ruling over people without
asking them periodically to approve the arrangement is undemocratic and
it leads to two things: a ruling class who forget that they are there
for the benefit of the people, and a people who become discontent with
the ruling class.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1077/A-country-should-never-cede-power-without-periodic-referenda

EU-scepticism is rising across the continent of Europe. In 1994 Norway
voted 52:48 to stay out. Now, polling puts them at about 75:25. Iceland
has recently decided to drop any pretence at wanting to join. So has
Switzerland. The Dutch want a referendum (53% to 44%). The Czech PM
"warned" that they could follow the UK out, if the UK leaves. The
Hungarian PM has been very vocal against EU policies.

In Portugal in 2015 about half the population voted for EU-sceptic
parties. And note what the President said when ruling out allowing the
left-wing coalition: "In 40 years of democracy, no government in
Portugal has ever depended on the support of anti-European forces, that
is to say forces that campaigned to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty, the
Fiscal Compact, the Growth and Stability Pact, as well as to dismantle
monetary union and take Portugal out of the euro, in addition to wanting
the dissolution of NATO."

In other words, just over half of voters had voted for parties with
anti-EU agendas.

Even in France, one of the most important members of the EU and one of
the biggest beneficiaries, Marine LePen's Front National is gaining
ground and topped a recent poll.

In summary, forcing people into an undemocratic political union that
they don't want is ultimately unsustainable. It would be better to help
people work together without requiring that they head towards becoming a
single state.

> Especially because the London Stock Exchange
> and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
> lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
> only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
> to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
> for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
> shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
> higher your profit).

I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if
you recognise that the EU helps large companies at the expense of
smaller competitors.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU

>> I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully
>> protectionist, undemocratic
>> supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to
>> acquire and centralise more and
>> more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out
>> of touch and extravagant. For
>> example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than
>> the UK's prime minister, the EC
>> president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over
>> 100,000 euros (per annum?)
>> for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to
>> me to be absolutely
>> disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes.
>
>
> You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money
> for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your
> royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 %
> of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole.

Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of
GDP is quite beyond my comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders
to pay themselves high salaries and live and work in luxury.

It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money.

>> I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way
>> with continental neighbours
>> and friends.
>>
>> The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since
>> gradually become much more than
>> that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a
>> rugby club. Ok if you like rugby
>> but not if you prefer tennis.
>
>
> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
> Union like the UK or USA.

True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!

> The future will show that we will
> not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.

We do not need the EU in order to work together!

I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity.

Directional changes used to require all heads of government to agree.
But as the EU expanded they found it was hard to get anything agreed so
they compromised and accepted majority voting (no longer needing total
agreement). Since then, countries representatives can be overruled. They
have to accept the will of the majority.

No one ever asks the populations what they want out of the EU or what
policies the EU should follow. That is a recipe for discontent.

Nations can work together without being in the EU. For example, on
security the UK and its partners would continue to work together
post-Brexit because we all need to cooperate. Such cooperation does not
need anyone to be in a politico-economic club. In fact, one US ex CIA
director said the EU tends to get in the way of security.

Leaving the EU is not about isolation and it would not stop cooperation.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation

...

>> That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we
>> share a home with family.
>> Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often.
>
>
> That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point
> of view, where all life in the universe respects each other
> and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit
> for all involved forces.

I like that universal vision too. What you must accept, though, is that
there are people out there who do not. While most of us want to get on
well and be friends with our neighbours there are people in the world
who want to do us harm. We must protect ourselves from them.

> What is wishful thinking right now
> might become our only way to survive in the near future.
>
> Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive...

Yes, it is wishful thinking. Unless the peaceful stand up for
themselves, it won't be the fittest but the aggressors who will survive.

...

>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>> Brits would still want to work
>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>> us don't want is lack of
>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>
>
> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?

Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No
other trading bloc in the world has political integration as its aim.
Only the EU has that as a core part of the "price" of membership.

--
James

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris schrieb:

> On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>
> [All OT]
>
> Notwithstanding your desire to bring this to an end, I will respond in some places. Don't feel that
> you need to reply.
>

>>> IMO the host countries should make sure the camps are safe, if only by
>>> policing. There may be an
>>> opportunity there to employ people living in the camps.
>>
>> http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486676.html
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon
>>
>> Just compare the numbers: About 1/6th of the population are
>> Syrian refugees. This was equivalent to 13,500,000 refugees
>> in Germany or 10,766,000 refugees in GB.
>>
>> I hope you got a picture of what you are talking about.
>
> I guess you mean that the number of people is too great for the Lebanon police force to handle.

No. I mean the number is too large to handle for a quite small
country like Lebanon. (Turkey will reach the limits they might
handle without problems sooner or later, as well.)

> That
> is true. But _everything_ about such high volumes of people makes them too many for Lebanon to
> handle. There are too many to house, too many to feed, too many to care for medically, too many to
> school properly etc.
>
> What I suggested was to use some of the refugees to help with policing. That would not just provide
> some security but it would also give the people so employed an opportunity to earn a _little_ bit of
> money rather than just relying on handouts.
>
> I would not suggest employing people as irregular police in the long term because that would be open
> to corruption. But I would get them to carry out basic policing duties for a while and then come off
> and let others take over.
>
> Basic policing could be about writing and collating reports of problems in the communities. The
> regular Lebanese trained police would take any actions needed.

Law and order (police / justice) are of little worth if people
starve or freeze to death, because the infrastructure to grant
them proper shelter and sufficient food is missing.

The extreme rigthists like Le Pen (F), Wilders (NL), Kaczyński
or Szydło (PL) and Orbán (HU) always were and still are strict
enemies of a united Europe. As nationalist forces, a united EU
would destroy their patridiotic dreams of one nation (or race)
ruling the entire world.

Watch the events in Poland - do you think they follow a proper
path as you cite their anti-democratic ideology as an argument
against a united Europe? Neighbours with common cultural roots
and common history should keep care of each other for *better*
reasons than disdainful mammonism.

>> Especially because the London Stock Exchange
>> and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
>> lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
>> only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
>> to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
>> for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
>> shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
>> higher your profit).
>
> I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if you recognise that the EU
> helps large companies at the expense of smaller competitors.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU

They will not ask you if you like them or not (as long as they
can make money they just will do it without asking any one for
permission).

Let us talk about real things: I often delivered plastic parts
for Nissan Motors to Johnson Control in Sunderland (pressed in
Augsburg). With open borders and domestic EU commerce, there's
one EU-wide tax to pay, but no toll or other costs. Voting for
Brexit, you *also* vote for customs, import taxes and controls
when entering or leaving British territory. Any decision comes
at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
never will come back)...

>>> I am not suggesting "division" but democracy. The EU is a dreadfully
>>> protectionist, undemocratic
>>> supporter of vested interests and its instincts are continually to
>>> acquire and centralise more and
>>> more power to itself. The people who work in the EU are overpaid, out
>>> of touch and extravagant. For
>>> example, according to reports, 10,000 EU workers are paid more than
>>> the UK's prime minister, the EC
>>> president uses a private jet, and they are about to debate paying over
>>> 100,000 euros (per annum?)
>>> for uniforms for a set of liveried chauffeurs. That whole lot seems to
>>> me to be absolutely
>>> disgusting. And we all pay for it with our taxes.
>>
>> You're talking about peanuts. If you're eager to save money
>> for officials, cut those 44,400,000 Euro you spend for your
>> royals each year. All in all - these sums are less than 1 %
>> of the GDP of the UK, Germany or the EU as a whole.
>
> Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of GDP is quite beyond my
> comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders to pay themselves high salaries and live and work
> in luxury.
>
> It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money.

Yes. On the other hand, these are *representatives* of a union
with 500,000,000 citicens. Calculating the "per head" share of
44,400,000 Euro, each European pays 8.88 Cent per anno to feed
the "luxury" of her/his representatives. Not too much compared
to the 68.86 Cent per head "Brits" grant their royals per anno
(including the toll for Dartford crossing)... ;)

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

>>> I should say that my beef is with the EU organisation, not in any way
>>> with continental neighbours and friends.
>>>
>>> The UK joined the EU being told it was a common market. It has since
>>> gradually become much more than
>>> that. It's like joining a tennis club that over time changes into a
>>> rugby club. Ok if you like rugby
>>> but not if you prefer tennis.
>>
>> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
>> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
>> Union like the UK or USA.
>
> True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!

Do you really claim to live in a *dictatorship* since 1976? If
your answer is no: You (the British people) voted for previous
parliaments - you were not forced to vote for those who follow
the European idea and sign pro-European contracts. Democracies
do not have to start a referendum for each political decision:
Their citicens *delegate* the power to decide to a parliament,
and, thereafter, the "avatars" they elected make decisions for
their citicens. AFAIK, no country in this world is governed by
"direct democracy". The one that comes closest is Switzerland,
but, even there: Most decisions do not require a "referendum".
All other countries rely on delegatees (=avatars) and frequent
election of candidates themselves or parties (or a mix of both
choices). Isn't it up to the *citicens* to vote for candidates
who offer solutions matching their own political wishes? Don't
blame the majority not to care about wishes of minorities, but
blame politicians who promise political deeds just to increase
their personal might or wealth, but act completely contrary to
what they promised when they are elected and start to make de-
cisions.

>> The future will show that we will
>> not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.
>
> We do not need the EU in order to work together!

That is what you - one of more than 64 million British folks -
believe (as no one can know this for real, it's just one valid
belief of many).

> I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity.

Until the early 1970ies this is true. Thereafter, most leaders
advanced this pure commercial organisation into a cultural and
political Union with the final goal to found the United States
of Europe. Meanwhile, growing selfishness starts to divide the
mutually grown solidarity just to benefit from the weakness of
the poorest members of the Union. I am pretty sure the UK will
suffer from a "Brexit" as well as most other EU members, while
China, the USA and Japan will benefit from our faction.

> Directional changes used to require all heads of government to agree. But as the EU expanded they
> found it was hard to get anything agreed so they compromised and accepted majority voting (no longer
> needing total agreement). Since then, countries representatives can be overruled. They have to
> accept the will of the majority.
>
> No one ever asks the populations what they want out of the EU or what policies the EU should follow.
> That is a recipe for discontent.
>
> Nations can work together without being in the EU. For example, on security the UK and its partners
> would continue to work together post-Brexit because we all need to cooperate. Such cooperation does
> not need anyone to be in a politico-economic club. In fact, one US ex CIA director said the EU tends
> to get in the way of security.
>
> Leaving the EU is not about isolation and it would not stop cooperation.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation

It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the
last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade...

>>> That, to me, is a positive view of both: family and friends. But we
>>> share a home with family.
>>> Friends don't live with us but we visit each other often.
>>
>>
>> That's the local point of view. I prefer an universal point
>> of view, where all life in the universe respects each other
>> and strives to share all forces providing a maximum benefit
>> for all involved forces.
>
> I like that universal vision too. What you must accept, though, is that there are people out there
> who do not. While most of us want to get on well and be friends with our neighbours there are people
> in the world who want to do us harm. We must protect ourselves from them.

I am aware of those who want to return to Middle Age politics,
and I don't see any difference between fundamentalist Muslims,
fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist patriots: They all
try to force the entire population to obey their rules. That's
nothing a democrat (or humanist) can agree with.

>> What is wishful thinking right now
>> might become our only way to survive in the near future.
>>
>> Only the fittest (not the strongest or richest) survive...
>
> Yes, it is wishful thinking. Unless the peaceful stand up for themselves, it won't be the fittest
> but the aggressors who will survive.

Yes.

>>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>>> Brits would still want to work
>>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>>> us don't want is lack of
>>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>>
>> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?
>
> Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No other trading bloc in the world
> has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core part of the "price" of membership.

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

What you are talking about does no longer exist since 1993.

With the process of re-uniting both German states, the leaders
of the EEC (namely Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher/Major) came to
the conclusion that only a united Europe might be fit to with-
stand the challenges of our future, so they ignited the "fire"
to develop the United States of Europe. It is based on solida-
rity and mutual assistance - the pillars of freedom and wealth
for all citicens. Now that many people throughout Europe don't
(want to) support this goal any longer, preferring nationalism
over solidarity and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get
oppression and poverty in the long run. I don't know why folks
support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts
of a few superrich, but they will earn their "price" (which is
total poverty with an optimized (= abolished) welfare system).
I hope I will die before this inhuman world is established...

Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

P.S.: Providing links to your own texts is a valid move, but I
did not see a single footnote citing independent sources
backing up your claims. As long as these are monologues,
they represent private *opinion* - nothing less, nothing
more. If you want to lend your words meaning, you should
furnish your claims with facts supporting the underlying
ideas. Here is a (actually my) philosophical view of the
problem:


http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/introduction.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/living-in-pyramid-land-part-1.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/03/living-in-pyramid-land-part-2.html
http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2015/06/living-in-pyramid-land-part-3.html

[Bernhard Schornak]

Myself scribbled:

> James Harris schrieb:

Should have been "wrote" rather than the German "schrieb".


*Addendum*

A BBC documentary about "Super Rich":

http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1)
http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2)

It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective
the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis-
tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity
to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a
process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface
of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and
only poor and super rich are left. Such strategies threaten our
"security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers
together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP:

https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB

All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the
petition.

[James Harris]

On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris schrieb:
>> On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>> James Harris wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>
>> [All OT]

...

>> In summary, forcing people into an undemocratic political union that
>> they don't want is ultimately
>> unsustainable. It would be better to help people work together without
>> requiring that they head
>> towards becoming a single state.
>
>
> The extreme rigthists like Le Pen (F), Wilders (NL), Kaczyński
> or Szydło (PL) and Orbán (HU) always were and still are strict
> enemies of a united Europe. As nationalist forces, a united EU
> would destroy their patridiotic dreams of one nation (or race)
> ruling the entire world.
>
> Watch the events in Poland - do you think they follow a proper
> path as you cite their anti-democratic ideology as an argument
> against a united Europe? Neighbours with common cultural roots
> and common history should keep care of each other for *better*
> reasons than disdainful mammonism.

You seem to have misunderstood my comments on the rise of anti-EU
feeling. I cited examples of increasing support for anti-EU parties as
evidence of dissatisfaction with the EU. Nothing I said should be
interpreted as endorsing those parties.

>>> Especially because the London Stock Exchange
>>> and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
>>> lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
>>> only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
>>> to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
>>> for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
>>> shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
>>> higher your profit).
>>
>> I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if
>> you recognise that the EU
>> helps large companies at the expense of smaller competitors.
>>
>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU
>>
>
>
> They will not ask you if you like them or not (as long as they
> can make money they just will do it without asking any one for
> permission).

It is not a case of liking or not liking big businesses. The fact is
that the EU gives them privileges and protections against their
competitors. That makes them complacent. It also puts up prices we pay.

As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller
suppliers.

> Let us talk about real things: I often delivered plastic parts
> for Nissan Motors to Johnson Control in Sunderland (pressed in
> Augsburg). With open borders and domestic EU commerce, there's
> one EU-wide tax to pay, but no toll or other costs. Voting for
> Brexit, you *also* vote for customs, import taxes and controls
> when entering or leaving British territory.

No one is suggesting imposing import tariffs. (I don't know why you
would think that.)

There are border controls in place now.

Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of
that are people who want to scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They
say that if we leave then EU countries will want to impose tariffs on us
as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have!

> Any decision comes
> at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
> car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
> Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
> them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
> transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
> voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
> pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
> never will come back)...

Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain
wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who want
to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought of as
European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel in
neighbouring countries etc.

Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU


...

>> Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of
>> GDP is quite beyond my
>> comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders to pay themselves
>> high salaries and live and work
>> in luxury.
>>
>> It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money.
>
>
> Yes. On the other hand, these are *representatives* of a union
> with 500,000,000 citicens. Calculating the "per head" share of
> 44,400,000 Euro, each European pays 8.88 Cent per anno to feed
> the "luxury" of her/his representatives. Not too much compared
> to the 68.86 Cent per head "Brits" grant their royals per anno
> (including the toll for Dartford crossing)... ;)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_Crossing

The royals don't set their own budget or expenses. That decision is made
by politicians according to what they feel the royals need to pay their
staff and expenses. The queen has public duties. The younger royals do
also but often have their own secular employment.

Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their
expenses. Every penny. And all their claims are logged where anyone can see:

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/

You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician claimed.

By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians are
given _unchecked_ expenses. They get the money whether they need it or
not. They don't have to justify what they spend. And anything they don't
spend they keep, topping up an already large salary.

For example, here is a small snippet from one MEP describing his first
day at work.

---
My next call was to the ‘general expenses’ official, who told me I was
entitled to nearly £3,500 a month as a bloc grant.

Was this to rent an office? I asked. No, no, he replied, we give you
offices in Brussels and in Strasbourg.

‘For computers and equipment, then?’

‘No, you get that, too. It’s for other incidental expenses like postage
and petrol.’ ‘Seriously? Three-and-a-half grand a month?’

‘As I say, sir, it’s an unconditional grant. You don’t have to submit
receipts. You just nominate which bank account it goes into.’
---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530980/Please-sack-Euro-MP-DANIEL-HANNAN-money-perks-gets-Brussels-making-Britons-lives-harder-begging-nation-courage-job.html

With people across Europe struggling financially, and many unable to
find work, the way EU politicians feather their own nests out of public
money is completely unacceptable.

It is not just the money they take home that is the problem. It is how
such luxurious living makes them insensitive to the needs of their
fellow citizens. Such remoteness tends to make people self absorbed,
overconfident.

The remedy is simple. They should periodically have to ask the people
for permission to rule. But they don't. And over time that leads to
separation.


...

>>> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
>>> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
>>> Union like the UK or USA.
>>
>> True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!
>
>
> Do you really claim to live in a *dictatorship* since 1976?

Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule.
Perhaps an oligarchy.

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

> If
> your answer is no: You (the British people) voted for previous
> parliaments - you were not forced to vote for those who follow
> the European idea and sign pro-European contracts. Democracies
> do not have to start a referendum for each political decision:

In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what they
will do if they win an election. The media test them against their
manifesto promises both before and after they get power. People judge by
the policies and the perceived character of the politicians.

Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too long.
Politicians should not have such a long mandate. They can get up to too
much mischief in that time!


...

> Isn't it up to the *citicens* to vote for candidates
> who offer solutions matching their own political wishes? Don't
> blame the majority not to care about wishes of minorities, but
> blame politicians who promise political deeds just to increase
> their personal might or wealth, but act completely contrary to
> what they promised when they are elected and start to make de-
> cisions.

The system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case for
minorities. That has happened here a number of times so that the
majority ends up supporting the minority.

>>> The future will show that we will
>>> not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.
>>
>> We do not need the EU in order to work together!
>
>
> That is what you - one of more than 64 million British folks -
> believe (as no one can know this for real, it's just one valid
> belief of many).

No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on
something we could do. We wouldn't need someone else to tell us that we
must.

If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science
research or air quality improvement or anti-terror measures or
third-world trade initiatives - they can still do so. We don't need to
be in the same club to cooperate.

>> I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity.
>
>
> Until the early 1970ies this is true. Thereafter, most leaders
> advanced this pure commercial organisation into a cultural and
> political Union with the final goal to found the United States
> of Europe.

Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be
part of.

> Meanwhile, growing selfishness starts to divide the
> mutually grown solidarity just to benefit from the weakness of
> the poorest members of the Union. I am pretty sure the UK will
> suffer from a "Brexit" as well as most other EU members, while
> China, the USA and Japan will benefit from our faction.

Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and
cooperating. But that's not the plan. As I say, there is no need for any
of us to stop cooperating or working together.

The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that
the EU will put up barriers to Brits if they leave the club.


...

> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the
> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade...

The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the
centre is, I believe, not sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a
governmental system it needs fundamental democratic reform.


...

> I am aware of those who want to return to Middle Age politics,
> and I don't see any difference between fundamentalist Muslims,
> fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist patriots: They all
> try to force the entire population to obey their rules. That's
> nothing a democrat (or humanist) can agree with.

That is what the EU does. It tries to force 500 million people to do
what it thinks is right. And it gets away with it because it never has
to put itself up for election.

I don't know whether the UK will vote to stay in the EU or leave it. But
people in Sweden and elsewhere have said that if the UK leaves then they
want their own referenda so that they have a chance to get out too.

People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a
supranational union which has been granted political power. Periodic
referenda should be a condition of its existence so that its leaders
know they are accountable to the people.


...

>>>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>>>> Brits would still want to work
>>>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>>>> us don't want is lack of
>>>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>>>
>>> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?
>>
>> Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No
>> other trading bloc in the world
>> has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core
>> part of the "price" of membership.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
>
> What you are talking about does no longer exist since 1993.

I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was the
goal.

> With the process of re-uniting both German states, the leaders
> of the EEC (namely Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher/Major) came to
> the conclusion that only a united Europe might be fit to with-
> stand the challenges of our future, so they ignited the "fire"
> to develop the United States of Europe. It is based on solida-
> rity and mutual assistance - the pillars of freedom and wealth
> for all citicens. Now that many people throughout Europe don't
> (want to) support this goal any longer, preferring nationalism
> over solidarity

I don't think people want to be nationalistic. If the EU satisfied their
needs they would probably welcome it. But its disastrous policies have
caused very high unemployment in Greece and Spain, for example, and
people who cannot get work naturally become dissatisfied with the system
which caused it.

> and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get
> oppression and poverty in the long run.

The EU is helping to cause poverty now!

> I don't know why folks
> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts
> of a few superrich,

Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big
corporates, the bigger fishing businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working
for people and it responds when pushed but it is really designed to
maintain protections on vested interests.

> but they will earn their "price" (which is
> total poverty with an optimized (= abolished) welfare system).
> I hope I will die before this inhuman world is established...

Not a good thing to talk about!

> P.S.: Providing links to your own texts is a valid move, but I
> did not see a single footnote citing independent sources
> backing up your claims. As long as these are monologues,
> they represent private *opinion* - nothing less, nothing
> more. If you want to lend your words meaning, you should
> furnish your claims with facts supporting the underlying
> ideas.

I don't claim my opinions as anything other than opinions. That's why I
put my name at the bottom of a page - to indicate that it is just my
comment.

I would rather appeal to logic and reason than to cite a supposed
authority.

I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs etc.
taken from reputable sources, and provided links to the originals.

> Here is a (actually my) philosophical view of the
> problem:
>
>
> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/introduction.html
> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/living-in-pyramid-land-part-1.html
>
> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/03/living-in-pyramid-land-part-2.html
>
> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2015/06/living-in-pyramid-land-part-3.html

Well, I read them. That's why I have been away for so long. ;-)

I am not sure I understood them all but I can see you have put a lot of
work and thought into them.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> Myself scribbled:
>
>> James Harris schrieb:
>
> Should have been "wrote" rather than the German "schrieb".

Either is fine!

> *Addendum*
>
> A BBC documentary about "Super Rich":
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1)
> http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2)
>
> It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective
> the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis-
> tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity
> to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a
> process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface
> of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and
> only poor and super rich are left.

That sounds really bad, and quite believable. I haven't watched the
videos yet.

> Such strategies threaten our
> "security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers
> together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP:
>
> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB
>
> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the
> petition.

That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU. TTIP is shrouded in
mystery but it is reputed to be very much an EU thing: protect the big
corporates and the vested interests, working against smaller competition
and individuals. And anti-democratic.

The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you"
until you wake up one day and find that it has all the power. Each trade
deal such as TTIP that it negotiates makes it stronger and harder to
pull away from.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

> Myself scribbled:
>> James Harris schrieb:

Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?

When he was in the UK he got quite heavily involved in British politics
over the EU referendum. I found that very surprising. I cannot ever
remember similar intervention in UK politics by an American president or
any other head of state.

Before he arrived he wrote a newspaper article effectively warning UK
voters against Brexit. And he spoke against it a number of times.

The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then, in
terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of the
queue".

Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are.

There were a few things that suggested he had discussed beforehand what
to say at the press conference. A number of things he said directly
reflected the UK government's wishes. (They are campaigning for the UK
to remain in the EU.)

For example, he said a US-UK trade deal could take up to ten years to
complete. That is exactly what the UK government has said about trade
deals generally. Yet it is widely accepted as scaremongering. For
example, the US concluded a trade deal with Australia in under two years!

I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that with
Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that of all
28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more quickly than the
EU one.

I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's
foreign policy. But that is not a reason to interfere with the
democratic choices of people of the UK.

Mr Obama has gone down in the estimation of many British citizens.

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> > Myself scribbled:
> >> James Harris schrieb:

> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?

Rod here. I did. I had a comment, but you hadn't posted in a while,
so I didn't bother to post it ...

Frankly, I was truly shocked by his response. It was and is a head
spinner for me. He's far, far left liberal on our political scale. He
has never supported anything I support. Most Presidents who are
Democrats support at least half of what I support. Ditto for
Republicans. So, I was stunned when he suggested much the same thing I
suggested to you about the U.K. staying in the E.U. It was truly a
"WTF?" moment here. He also butted in where his comments probably
weren't asked for, wanted, or even liked, but it seems he felt your
media outlets weren't covering the entire story. That could be part of
his strategy, e.g., anger them so they do what's he thinks is best, but
I don't know how he works.

> When he was in the UK he got quite heavily involved in British
> politics over the EU referendum. I found that very surprising. I
> cannot ever remember similar intervention in UK politics by an
> American president or any other head of state.

Many in the U.S. see him as a socialist, which is why they refer to him
as a "Muslim." I'm not sure what he did there, but my guess is that
being able to easily push even more socialist policies in the E.U.
probably excited him. He has a really difficult time pushing such
policies here. There is very strong under-current of individualism and
self-reliance in the U.S. Socialist policies or government solutions,
such as forced healthcare, generally don't fit well with that.

> Before he arrived he wrote a newspaper article effectively warning UK
> voters against Brexit. And he spoke against it a number of times.
>
> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then,
> in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of
> the queue".
>
> Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are.

I doubt he used the word "queue," i.e., it's mostly British or computer
science related. The word "line," e.g., "end of the line" or "back of
the line" or "next in line" or "last in line" etc is used in the U.S.

What was reported here was that it could take a long time to negotiate
for new trading arrangements with the U.K. since there are few in
place. The idea that the U.S. doesn't have many direct trading
agreements with the U.K. and Britain seemed strange to me to the point
of being incorrect, but I'd have to do some research to find out. The
U.S. and Britain were involved in all sorts of trade, historically.

> There were a few things that suggested he had discussed beforehand
> what to say at the press conference. A number of things he said
> directly reflected the UK government's wishes. (They are campaigning
> for the UK to remain in the EU.)

Well, it's up to the politicians to represent your best interest, so if
it appears they aren't, then they need to justify why they are doing
something other that what the majority of people desire. Even then,
something may be pushed upon you due to your laws, e.g., like equal
treatment of gays and lesbians in the U.S. Most here are Christians who
fundamentally oppose that. The 14th Amendment "Equal Protection
Clause" of the constitution is used to justify that, but doing so
violates the 1st Amendment "Right of Assembly" and the resulting
freedom of association, and also the 1st Amendement "Right of Freedom
of Religion." How do you resolve conflicting "absolute" rights? ...

> For example, he said a US-UK trade deal could take up to ten years to
> complete. That is exactly what the UK government has said about trade
> deals generally. Yet it is widely accepted as scaremongering. For
> example, the US concluded a trade deal with Australia in under two
> years!

Most likely, it was something the U.S. wanted very badly ... The U.S.
got whatever it truly wanted, which was probably something that
Australia didn't even recognize it was negotiating over, i.e., indirect
or secondary.

It's very likely the U.S. government assumes that trade with the U.K.
will continue as-is without much fanfare either way. All countries
today need to import and export product to survive. It's nearly
impossible to exist without trade.

Even if it takes ten years, that's just two "blinks of the eye" away.
A new trade arrangement with the U.S. could be very advantageous to the
U.K. The U.S. market has basically the same size GDP as the E.U. It
might even increase U.K.'s trade with larger U.S. trading partners,
e.g., Canada and Mexico. Many American companies have subsidiaries in
Mexico and even the quality of some purely Mexican products has become
very good.

Of course, I still think that long-term, the U.K. is better off
fixing the E.U. arrangement than rejecting it. It's very likely that
as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push
the E.U. toward more reforms. When they do, the U.K. could be a
very strong ally to them in that regard. Power shifts over time.

> I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that
> with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that
> of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more
> quickly than the EU one.

One area with would likely be a strong point of contention with the
U.S. is the British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and
Commonwealth countries that are being used as tax havens, e.g.,
Guernsey, Jersey, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Turks & Caicos, Anquilla, Montserrat,
Gibraltar, Isl of Man, etc ... Wow, you guys have a lot of them. I'm
sure that that is a problematic thorn in the side of the U.S., E.U.,
OECD, U.N., etc.

So, if the U.K. Brexits and negotiates a new trade deal with the U.S.,
you can bet that the U.S. will want full tax disclosure from these
British controlled or related countries, i.e., monies, citizenship,
beneficial owners, legal recourse, etc. The U.S. created FATCA upon
which the OECD CRS tax reporting is based. So, the U.S. is likely to
push FATCA or even the full OECD CRS upon the U.K. territories.

> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's
> foreign policy.

Why? What difference would this make? ...


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100
James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller
> suppliers.

Rod again. I'd rather see much competition between larger suppliers.
Larger suppliers have economies of scale, economies of scope, economies
of agglomeration, and can control more factors of production. This means
their overall costs of production are much lower than a smaller
supplier. Larger suppliers can afford to invest in specialized
equipment and processes which produce better quality products. In
fact, there are many cases where the optimal economic solution for
customers is a single monopoly, e.g., former national U.S. telephone
monopoly had the lowest service prices but no product innovation.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true too, i.e., monopolies can be the
worst solution on price.

> > Any decision comes
> > at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
> > car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
> > Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
> > them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
> > transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
> > voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
> > pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
> > never will come back)...
>
> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain
> wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who
> want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought
> of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel
> in neighbouring countries etc.

It is true that even trivial costs are important to a car
manufacturer. With millions of units of expected cars even a few cents
per car becomes millions of dollars of upfront costs that they must
borrow.

> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU

I was wondering why we hadn't seen a post from you in a while ...

Well, the "Supremacy" as that article calls it, is what we have in the
U.S. The federal government has "supremacy" on the issues it controls.
The constitution defines what it controls and everything else is for the
"member" states of the U.S. So, I guess we don't fear this situation
as much as you do? ... Of course, the two governments (state, federal)
that each U.S. citizen is ruled by, were developed and integrated at the
same time in history. The U.K. is likely giving up much U.K. "federal"
level power by transforming into just a "state" under an E.U. "federal"
level government. It seems, from Wikipedia, that the E.U. is basically
has separation of powers like the U.S. and that portions of it are
elected. So, it just needs to be banged into shape a bit.


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 23:58:43 -0400
Rod Pemberton <NoHave...@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Corrections:

> as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push

[...] democratic it's likely that they will push

> One area with would likely

One are which would likely


RP

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>> Myself scribbled:
>>>> James Harris schrieb:
>
>> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?
>
> Rod here. I did. I had a comment, but you hadn't posted in a while,
> so I didn't bother to post it ...
>
> Frankly, I was truly shocked by his response. It was and is a head
> spinner for me.

Me too. I actually feel a bit stunned that a head of state should
intervene in the way he did.

What was it about his response that shocked you?

> He's far, far left liberal on our political scale. He
> has never supported anything I support. Most Presidents who are
> Democrats support at least half of what I support. Ditto for
> Republicans. So, I was stunned when he suggested much the same thing I
> suggested to you about the U.K. staying in the E.U.

Interestingly, so far Mr Obama's comments seem to have angered rather
than convinced people.

That said, when people go to vote I suspect many will be swayed by "fear
of the unknown" of leaving the EU.

...

> He also butted in where his comments probably
> weren't asked for, wanted, or even liked, but it seems he felt your
> media outlets weren't covering the entire story. That could be part of
> his strategy, e.g., anger them so they do what's he thinks is best, but
> I don't know how he works.

IIRC a survey result was that 55% said he should have kept his thoughts
to himself with only 30% or something feeling his intervention was
acceptable.


...

>> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU then,
>> in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the back of
>> the queue".
>>
>> Nice one, Pres! Always good for us to know who our friends are.
>
> I doubt he used the word "queue,"

But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had planned
to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British audience.
And what a thing to say!

Here's a video as evidence.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/obama-uk-us-trade-deal-would-be-back-of-queue-129162

Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire
here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when
America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would
find itself at the back of the line!

Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the UK
is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want to be
treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK punches
above its weight. For example:

UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with its
population of over a billion.

UK GDP larger than that of Russia.

UK a member of NATO, permanent seat on UN Security Council, G7 economy,
G20 industrial country, second strongest military in the EU, nuclear
power, etc.

Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be pushed
around or disrespected. Not even by the US president.

> i.e., it's mostly British or computer
> science related. The word "line," e.g., "end of the line" or "back of
> the line" or "next in line" or "last in line" etc is used in the U.S.
>
> What was reported here was that it could take a long time to negotiate
> for new trading arrangements with the U.K. since there are few in
> place.

It's interesting to hear how things get reported over there.

> The idea that the U.S. doesn't have many direct trading
> agreements with the U.K. and Britain seemed strange to me to the point
> of being incorrect, but I'd have to do some research to find out. The
> U.S. and Britain were involved in all sorts of trade, historically.

Apparently, trade can be done without trade agreements, under WTO rules.

IIRC the UK and US have fairly balanced trade with each other at the
moment, each buying about $56 bn from each other per year, each having
significant investments in the other's territory, and each having about
a million expats from the other.

... (snipped, but noted a lot of good comments)

> Of course, I still think that long-term, the U.K. is better off
> fixing the E.U. arrangement than rejecting it.

That could be along the lines that Obama thinks. At least that he wants
the UK in the EU as a liaison or as an influence.

In terms of heritage and values and the way we in the UK think we are
far closer to the USA than we are to Europe.

However, the EU is sucking the identity, life and spirit out of the UK
(IMO).

The UK has no power to 'fix' the EU. Since something called, IIRC, the
Single European Act the EU has been the entity with the primary power.
What it says takes precedence over the UK's parliament and over the UK's
courts.

And we as members of the public cannot normally vote against the EU. It
is a fait accompli. We are in, and its rules take precedence over ours.

This referendum will be the first chance we have had in over 40 years.

> It's very likely that
> as other E.U. member states become more democratic that they will push
> the E.U. toward more reforms. When they do, the U.K. could be a
> very strong ally to them in that regard. Power shifts over time.

Unfortunately, things are heading the other way. The undemocratic EU
quite literally chooses to ignore democratic votes. There has not been a
really big vote against it such as I hope the UK will deliver but when
small countries have voted against an EU measure they have been ignored
or the result has been countermanded in some way.

I hadn't realised until recently that the EU really does put its own
existence and primary designs above everything else, including its own
treaty rules. They seemed proud to have broken their treaty rules in
order to rescue the euro.

As one of its presidents, Jean-Claude Juncker, said "There can be no
democratic choice against the European treaties". In other words, they
put the EU project above any dissenting voice, even a democratic one.

The EU really has become a very dangerous organisation.

>> I accept that a deal with Britain could be more complex than that
>> with Australia but, with the UK's needs being much simpler than that
>> of all 28 EU countries, a British deal could be concluded more
>> quickly than the EU one.
>
> One area with would likely be a strong point of contention with the
> U.S. is the British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies, and
> Commonwealth countries that are being used as tax havens, e.g.,
> Guernsey, Jersey, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda,
> Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Turks & Caicos, Anquilla, Montserrat,
> Gibraltar, Isl of Man, etc ... Wow, you guys have a lot of them. I'm
> sure that that is a problematic thorn in the side of the U.S., E.U.,
> OECD, U.N., etc.
>
> So, if the U.K. Brexits and negotiates a new trade deal with the U.S.,
> you can bet that the U.S. will want full tax disclosure from these
> British controlled or related countries, i.e., monies, citizenship,
> beneficial owners, legal recourse, etc. The U.S. created FATCA upon
> which the OECD CRS tax reporting is based. So, the U.S. is likely to
> push FATCA or even the full OECD CRS upon the U.K. territories.

That all sounds good.

It was America which finally blew apart the FIFA scandal. I am not a
football (soccer) fan but I hated the corruption which had been
apparently going on in FIFA for a long time, and I am glad that American
investigators did something about it. Maybe something similar will
happen with tax havens and avoidance/evasion schemes.

>> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of America's
>> foreign policy.
>
> Why? What difference would this make? ...

Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal with
rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have said that
he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller
>> suppliers.
>
> Rod again. I'd rather see much competition between larger suppliers.
> Larger suppliers have economies of scale, economies of scope, economies
> of agglomeration, and can control more factors of production. This means
> their overall costs of production are much lower than a smaller
> supplier. Larger suppliers can afford to invest in specialized
> equipment and processes which produce better quality products. In
> fact, there are many cases where the optimal economic solution for
> customers is a single monopoly, e.g., former national U.S. telephone
> monopoly had the lowest service prices but no product innovation.
> Unfortunately, the opposite is true too, i.e., monopolies can be the
> worst solution on price.

Yes, monopolies tend to be inefficient and therefore costly.

On the other hand, when private firms provide public services people
complain that they are making excess profits.

Many services here used to be run by the government but are now run by
private firms. That leads to claims of profiteering.

As a solution what do you think about the idea of leaving them run by
private firms but adding the following?

The idea is for a government to set up a department to be able to
compete against private firms in certain circumstances.

Where there is suspicion that a private firm is profiteering from
running a public service the government would see if it could set up a
department to compete.

Where the government could not compete with the private firms it would
say so and thus address complaints of profiteering.

Where the government could compete, on the other hand, it would
'threaten' to enter the market. If that did not drive prices down then
the government would go ahead and set up the department and begin to
compete.

After a period of time the government would review the situation and
either pull out or carry on running the service.

The goals would be 1) to keep the private sector genuinely competing, 2)
to provide price reassurance to the public, 3) to prevent politicians
from unnecessarily taking the whole service into public ownership.

Any good?

I know that for some services there would be issues wrt buying in to the
market.

>>> Any decision comes
>>> at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
>>> car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
>>> Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
>>> them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
>>> transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
>>> voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
>>> pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
>>> never will come back)...
>>
>> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain
>> wanting to isolate itself. That is a myth put about by people who
>> want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be thought
>> of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel
>> in neighbouring countries etc.
>
> It is true that even trivial costs are important to a car
> manufacturer. With millions of units of expected cars even a few cents
> per car becomes millions of dollars of upfront costs that they must
> borrow.

Well, the UK has its own currency. Much of Europe uses the euro and we
have the pound. Therefore there is marked uncertainty caused by variable
exchange rates.

IMO that is more significant a fear for motor manufacturers. Yet plenty
of cars made in EU countries are bought here and vice versa.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at
>>
>>
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU
>
> I was wondering why we hadn't seen a post from you in a while ...

Yes, setting up that web site was, er, fun. It took a lot of work to get
the PHP code working as I am not a PHP programmer. And after using it
for a few projects I don't want to be!

In addition, writing the articles has been time consuming.

There were also sundry matters such as getting URL rewriting working
properly, writing code (in Python) to generate a sitemap and the page
index, learning about CSS, and dealing with an issue caused by the provider.

Still, it is there now, and I keep adding to it as new issues come up.

As you say, that helps explain why I have been quiet for a while.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 05:01, Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

> Well, the "Supremacy" as that article calls it, is what we have in the
> U.S. The federal government has "supremacy" on the issues it controls.
> The constitution defines what it controls and everything else is for the
> "member" states of the U.S. So, I guess we don't fear this situation
> as much as you do?

There are some differences.

First, in the US you have a democracy. The EU governmental system, by
contrast, is principally not democratic. It is more an oligarchy. Yes,
really! Details below.

Second, the various countries which are members of the EU are very
diverse. Their economies differ greatly, and they have different
attitudes. Some are powerful and others are weak. That has led to high
unemployment in Greece and Spain. And it leads to the UK's voice in the
EU being swamped.

Third, as member states are not allowed things such as being able to
make their own trade deals, membership of the EU leads to the UK's voice
in the world being countermanded or even opposed. We have to accept what
the EU organises whether we like it or not.

> ... Of course, the two governments (state, federal)
> that each U.S. citizen is ruled by, were developed and integrated at the
> same time in history. The U.K. is likely giving up much U.K. "federal"
> level power by transforming into just a "state" under an E.U. "federal"
> level government. It seems, from Wikipedia, that the E.U. is basically
> has separation of powers like the U.S. and that portions of it are
> elected. So, it just needs to be banged into shape a bit.

It is a complicated system but, AIUI:

The only elected part is the European Parliament (EP) but in many ways
it is mainly a rubber stamping body.

The EP can have so many laws to pass in unit time that by the time a
member of the parliament has had the words translated into his or her
language the issue that he or she is supposed to be voting on has gone
and the next one is the 'current' one! So they might miss the one they
meant to approve and approve the following one instead. Perhaps anyone
wanting to get a measure through will be happy if it follows something
popular. ;-)

Alright, that is probably unusual but they do have to approve a high
volume of trade legislation at times. The EU likes to have rules on
everything from cabbages to kettles to candles.

The main EU power resides with the European Commission. It is totally
unelected. Its head is a person who is nominated by the heads of the
member states and who then faces a ratifying vote by the parliament. He
or she requires no approval of the people.

Once in place, the Commission's head /chooses/ a person from each member
state to work in his or her team. As there are 28 members, that results
in a team of 29 people who are entirely unelected.

The Commission is the nearest thing to an EU government. They are the
only ones who can propose legislation and are in the process of
acquiring more powers as an executive.

Legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the
"Council of the EU". Again, just like the Commission, the Council of the
EU is unelected.

So, the only elected part is the Parliament. In that, the UK has only
about a 10% stake. So if something comes up that we in the UK do not
want we are powerless to prevent it.

As I say, it is complex. There is also a European Council (not the same
as the Council of the EU, believe it or not). They are the ones who set
the EU's strategic direction.

The UK is 1/28th of the Council of the EU and 1/28th of the European
Council.

Forgive the long explanation but I wanted to explain that

* only one part is elected
* that part has little power
* the UK has 1/10th or 1/28th of a say in the EU's machinations

The situation is a bit more complex but the basic point is that the UK
has little or no power to 'bang the EU into shape'! We do not have that
authority and our Prime Minister has tried but cannot get agreement for
change.

We are basically stuck with the EU as it is.

One thing that might cause a change is if the UK were to leave. The EU
would lose about £8 bn per year. It would also have to work with us to
get the UK on board rather than continually outvoting us!

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> >>> Myself scribbled:
> >>>> James Harris schrieb:

> >> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU
> >> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the
> >> back of the queue".
> >>
> >

> > I doubt he used the word "queue,"
>
> But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had
> planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British
> audience. And what a thing to say!

Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech.

> Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire
> here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when
> America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would
> find itself at the back of the line!

Does America really need the help militarily, or does it do so to ensure
it's partners are contributing to the cause and have some "skin in the
game" of their own? I'd argue the latter. I don't think we really need
any military help at this point in history when dealing with anyone.

> Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the
> UK is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want
> to be treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK
> punches above its weight.

Well, it seems to remain sovereign in the sense you mean, the UK
will need to Brexit. If that's the goal, it's not a hard choice.
Make up some sketchy slogan, "Sovereignty or nothing!" or even
recycle old American revolutionary phrases, like "Live free or die!"
It fits the anarchist vein in the U.K. very well, but using the last
one would actually be a bit ironic. ;-)

> For example:
> UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with
> its population of over a billion.

You'd think India would be doing better ... They speak English.
They have a legal system based on British Common law. Maybe,
British colonization did more damage than good?

> UK GDP larger than that of Russia.

That's unfortunate for Russia. Old wounds die hard, but
the U.S., as the dominant single economy, is likely needed
for their economic comeback.

> Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be
> pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president.

As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony anymore.

We are the primary superpower in the world and the largest economy.
Russia's economy is not sustainable as is. They suffer from "Dutch
disease". Their dependence on oil exports and other natural resources
is driving that. Their military strength is in decline, but they are
still a serious threat because they have so many nuclear weapons.

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

I'm not so sure ... All those trillions of dollars the U.S. companies
are diverting offshore is being invested in other countries and
workers. I.e., it may be good for the U.S. taxman, but it'll likely
put a dent in the economies of other countries if the U.S. companies
are forced to withdraw those funds to pay taxes. This is why I don't
understand why E.U. countries, especially France, are so insistent on
ending tax avoidance and evasion schemes. They're being enriched by
the U.S. It's not like France doesn't have tax breaks on things like
research and development subsidiaries.

> >> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of
> >> America's foreign policy.
> >
> > Why? What difference would this make? ...
>
> Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal
> with rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have
> said that he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe.
>

But, he can simply set the policy to be the same for both.


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:00 +0100

I think you've made a flawed assumption. You've assumed that the
government's department will be cost effective in it's competition.
Nothing in the U.S. federal government is cost competitive. It doesn't
have to be. As a government department or agency, nothing forces it to
be profitable. I.e., the government department's costs and prices would
be high and it wouldn't be able to detect lack of competition.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 10:42, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:28:00 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I can tell that you have understood the suggestion. What I would say is
that it has multiple goals, one of which is to reassure the public that
the service they are getting from the private sector could not be
bettered in public hands. As such, if the government found it could not
do the job more cheaply then the public could be advised thereof, thus
giving some reassurance.

Also, although public departments have always been believed to be less
efficient I am not aware of any case in the modern era wherein a public
department has tried to compete against commercial firms.

In theory, the public department could be cheaper if it did not make a
profit. For that reason, perhaps the public department could aim for a
small 'profit' which would go into the public purse. Having to require
them to make a 'profit' would make it a level playing field and not
disadvantage commercial competitors.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 10:25, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
>>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>>>> Myself scribbled:
>>>>>> James Harris schrieb:
>
>>>> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU
>>>> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at the
>>>> back of the queue".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt he used the word "queue,"
>>
>> But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had
>> planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a British
>> audience. And what a thing to say!
>
> Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech.

I see Ted Cruz has 'slapped Obama down' for what he said in the UK.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/664848/Ted-Cruz-Barack-Obama-front-of-queue-Brexit-trade-deal-EU-referendum-Donald-Trump

What is Cruz like? Does he have any chance of beating Trump to the
Republican nomination?

>> Telling us we would be at the back of the queue prompted a lot of ire
>> here, and some interesting responses. One I remember said that when
>> America asked for help with another war in the Middle East, it would
>> find itself at the back of the line!
>
> Does America really need the help militarily, or does it do so to ensure
> it's partners are contributing to the cause and have some "skin in the
> game" of their own? I'd argue the latter. I don't think we really need
> any military help at this point in history when dealing with anyone.

No, America doesn't need military help. Though it may find things easier
with allies taking a small role.

I don't think the comment was serious, unless it was talking about moral
support.

>> Of course, all of that is divisive and unnecessary. We all know the
>> UK is much smaller than the USA or the combined EU. But we still want
>> to be treated as a sovereign nation. And it turns out that the UK
>> punches above its weight.
>
> Well, it seems to remain sovereign in the sense you mean, the UK
> will need to Brexit.

Well, we have lost significant sovereignty already. And if we vote In
then for a number of reasons I expect we will lose a lot more.

Interestingly, it seems that a significant number of people may vote to
stay In not because they like or understand the EU but because they like
Europe. The EU and Europe are two different things.

Such people think that Brexit means some form of isolation. That's a
false view and the campaigners need to try to disabuse them of it of
they could lose the vote on a misconception.

Just on that, US former general David Petraeus wrote an article in a UK
newspaper urging Brits not to leave the EU. Here it is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/27/david-petraeus-brexit-would-weaken-the-wests-war-on-terror/

When I read it I realised that he thought Brexit was about the UK
isolating itself. That is very wrong. That's not what Brexit is about.
We have an uphill struggle to get people to realise what leaving the EU
means. It is not difficult to understand but there are a lot of false
views out there.

In case I didn't already post this, this is my response to people whose
views are like that of Petraeus:

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1100/Is-Brexit-about-isolation

Possibly Obama's view is similar.

> If that's the goal, it's not a hard choice.
> Make up some sketchy slogan, "Sovereignty or nothing!" or even
> recycle old American revolutionary phrases, like "Live free or die!"
> It fits the anarchist vein in the U.K. very well, but using the last
> one would actually be a bit ironic. ;-)

:-)

>> For example:
>> UK with its 65 million people has a bigger economy than India with
>> its population of over a billion.
>
> You'd think India would be doing better ... They speak English.
> They have a legal system based on British Common law. Maybe,
> British colonization did more damage than good?

Frankly, it's too hard to judge. Possibly they have a more important
focus in life than just economics. We do tend to be a bit money focussed
in the west. There is more to life.

>> UK GDP larger than that of Russia.
>
> That's unfortunate for Russia. Old wounds die hard, but
> the U.S., as the dominant single economy, is likely needed
> for their economic comeback.

Sure. I just found it amazing that their GDP was lower than ours. We are
not much more than a tiny island with dwindling natural resources.
Russia is vast, a former superpower, and has the oil and gas to be very
wealthy. But they are not. Very odd.

>> Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be
>> pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president.
>
> As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony anymore.

I think that Britain has treated people even worse than yourselves.
People starved in Ireland when there was grain in English ports. Britain
used its navy to force China to accept opium which harmed its people.
Etc. I may be British and not know much about our history but I have
heard some bad things.

That said, the attitudes that led to those bad actions are very much in
the past. If anything the UK has now become too soft and lost its
motivation and positivity.

> We are the primary superpower in the world and the largest economy.
> Russia's economy is not sustainable as is. They suffer from "Dutch
> disease". Their dependence on oil exports and other natural resources
> is driving that. Their military strength is in decline, but they are
> still a serious threat because they have so many nuclear weapons.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Interesting.


...

>>>> I suspect Mr Obama wants the UK to be in the EU as part of
>>>> America's foreign policy.
>>>
>>> Why? What difference would this make? ...
>>
>> Mainly influence on the EU. Also, a single body to contact and deal
>> with rather than two. One of your presidents was reported to have
>> said that he had no one to call when he wanted to phone Europe.
>>
>
> But, he can simply set the policy to be the same for both.

Well, that maybe has merit but for subtle reasons. Obama is possibly
under the same impression as Petraeus, above, and thinks that an
independent UK would be isolated from the EU. At the risk of posting too
many links to my own pages, here's what I came up with when I thought
about what would probably happen if we left the EU.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1113/The-UK's-influence-on-the-EU-post-Brexit

Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small matters
that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up to a point)
on large matters. Various people would still want Europe to speak with
one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The attempts to achieve a
common position would actually give us a greater influence. As an
independent nation again the UK could not simply be voted down or
outnumbered.

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:16:30 +0100

If you could assure the government department made a profit somehow or
just a bit of free cash flow, even if only a dollar, you could assume
that you've established the worst case scenario for a minimally viable
company in that industry. Any prices worse than that department set,
then the companies in the open market are most definitely ripping
customers off. I'm not sure you need to go to such lengths. E.g., in
the U.S., our IRS (taxes) develops cash flow models for industries they
audit regularly, but usually only for cash heavy businesses like
restaurants, coin operated laundries, etc, to prevent money laundering
from skimming of revenues. Even though the models are used for tax
auditing, the models are (or once were) publicly available since they
were produced at taxpayer expense. I wouldn't doubt it if your HMRC
does much the same in terms of creating such models for businesses.


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/04/2016 10:25, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100
> >>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> >>>>> Myself scribbled:
> >>>>>> James Harris schrieb:

> >>>> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU
> >>>> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at
> >>>> the back of the queue".
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I doubt he used the word "queue,"
> >>
> >> But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had
> >> planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a
> >> British audience. And what a thing to say!
> >
> > Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech.
>
> I see Ted Cruz has 'slapped Obama down' for what he said in the UK.
>

> [link]
>
> What is Cruz like?

I'd never heard of him prior to this, but I'm not into politics.
Politics is probably, literally, the last, or next to last thing in
this world that I'm interested in. He's from Texas, apparently their
U.S. Senator. He seems like a decent guy. He's not excessively religious
like Mitt Romney came off as.

> Does he have any chance of beating Trump to the Republican nomination?

No. IMO, he didn't even a while back when we first talked. He, like
the other Republican politicians this year, just didn't have the brand
or reputation or recognition or pull or aura that Trump has. The
Northeastern U.S. is usually needed to support a candidate, due to high
population New York City. People in the Northeast U.S. don't usually
support candidates from the South. The West tends to not like
candidates from the East, etc. The four big population states are New
York, California, Florida, and Texas.

Texas is more conservative, i.e., many Christians and churches,
for marriage, against abortion, for gun rights, a big hunting state, a
big ranch and farming state, against big government, and for businesses.
California is very liberal, i.e., not that religious, for abortion, for
divorce, for gay and lesbian rights, anti-guns, for protecting the
environment and animals, but also somewhat anti-business, such as heavy
taxation. Even with an anti-business state government, the GDP of
California is large due to their variety of successful industries,
e.g., Hollywood movie industry, Silicon Valley electronics, Bay Area
software and internet companies, etc. It's expensive to live in those
areas. Florida is a mix, liberal, but also pro-gun, with lots of
retirees, orange groves, horse farms, mix of conservative and liberal
wealth, etc. New York is more class-oriented, conservative, but also
anti-gun due to New York City's organized crime, a very high tax state,
and very expensive to live in New York City, comparable to London.
The rest of the state of New York is fairly rural country, farmland,
ski resorts, and smaller towns, almost forgotten.

Every U.S. Census the states with larger populations receive higher
numbers of representative voters, i.e., "electors." See Electoral
College:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

> >> Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be
> >> pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president.
> >
> > As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony
> > anymore.
>
> I think that Britain has treated people even worse than yourselves.
> People starved in Ireland when there was grain in English ports.
> Britain used its navy to force China to accept opium which harmed its
> people. Etc. I may be British and not know much about our history but
> I have heard some bad things.

I was just messing with you a tad bit. You weren't referring to
the U.S. in your comments at that point about the UK being pushed
around or disrespected, but I was, i.e., by the U.S. during
revolutionary war, therefore, your country's old wounds die hard. ;-)

Anyway, AFAIK, all my great grand parents are of English descent.
I.e., my family tree is likely in both countries during their "worst"
periods, according to you.

> That said, the attitudes that led to those bad actions are very much
> in the past. If anything the UK has now become too soft and lost its
> motivation and positivity.

Hence, Banksy ... I don't really agree with many of his messages, not
being from the U.K., but his presentation and perspective is unique.

> Obama is possibly under the same impression as Petraeus, above, and
> thinks that an independent UK would be isolated from the EU.

Well, if you'd rather be the 51st state, we can accommodate that too,
I think ... The cable TV might be a bit better. ;-) The only real
problem I see with that is most of the liberals here are on the West
coast or off the West coast (Hawaii). You guys would be off the East
coast. :-)

> Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small
> matters that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up
> to a point) on large matters. Various people would still want Europe
> to speak with one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The
> attempts to achieve a common position would actually give us a
> greater influence. As an independent nation again the UK could not
> simply be voted down or outnumbered.
>

"... want Europe to speak with one voice ..."

I thought there were a bunch of countries around (non-Russian) Europe
who aren't part of the E.U. ...

Canada does just fine by itself, but it does benefit from our economy
and military strengths in the region. The same is likely true of the
U.K. and E.U., if the U.K. chooses Brexit. If separation is what you
guys truly want, don't fear it, just go for it! At worst, you can only
end up where you already are: regret. At best, you end up somewhere
else, not regretting. I already voiced my opinion that think it's best
to stay.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small
>> matters that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up
>> to a point) on large matters. Various people would still want Europe
>> to speak with one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The
>> attempts to achieve a common position would actually give us a
>> greater influence. As an independent nation again the UK could not
>> simply be voted down or outnumbered.
>>
>
> "... want Europe to speak with one voice ..."
>
> I thought there were a bunch of countries around (non-Russian) Europe
> who aren't part of the E.U. ...

Yes, there are many small European countries which are not in the EU. I
gather a number of them want to join. That is completely understandable.
As well as trading links they would receive significant direct funding
as part of their membership.

In the following link if you click on the "Net contribution" button you
will see a useful graph showing which countries pay in to the EU and
which get money out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm

Basically the richer countries contribute money which goes to the poorer
ones. That makes the EU very attractive to the latter.

> Canada does just fine by itself, but it does benefit from our economy
> and military strengths in the region. The same is likely true of the
> U.K. and E.U., if the U.K. chooses Brexit.

There wouldn't be a military benefit to the UK to have the EU nearby.
The EU is not a military power (yet) and its views would often differ
from those of the UK.

Besides, military alliances are more about similar mindsets than proximity.

In many ways, not just on foreign policies, the UK and the countries of
continental Europe think and act differently.

> If separation is what you
> guys truly want, don't fear it, just go for it! At worst, you can only
> end up where you already are: regret. At best, you end up somewhere
> else, not regretting.

At the moment the issue seems to be quite evenly split: roughly 45% for
remaining, 45% for leaving, and 10% undecided.

It is impossible in a few words here to convey the scaremongering the
British people are being bombarded with to try to make them stay in the
EU, or how determined the establishment is to get a Remain outcome.

We have had the government, the EU, foreign leaders, the G20, the IMF,
the OECD, the CBI and many other bodies all saying - often in very
strong terms - that Britain should remain in the EU.

The government has blatantly stacked the deck by spending £9 million (of
public money) on a leafleting and social media campaign. Officially,
each side is only allowed to spend £7 million so this governmental £9
million effectively doubles their side's advertising firepower!

All of that makes it all the more surprising that opinion polls show a
rough balance. (Of course, the polls could be wrong but their stability
is nonetheless surprising.)

> I already voiced my opinion that think it's best
> to stay.

Can you remind me of why?



Here is a lighter moment re. Lt Columbo but which nevertheless gives an
interesting summary:

https://twitter.com/bernerlap/status/727213876157267970?lang=en-gb


--
James Harris

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> Myself scribbled:
>>

>> *Addendum*
>>
>> A BBC documentary about "Super Rich":
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/gv36aut (Part 1)
>> http://tinyurl.com/zd4hq87 (Part 2)
>>
>> It provides a quite lenghty explanation why the UK - respective
>> the tax policies of the British government - fuels rapid redis-
>> tribution of property from an overwhelming majority of humanity
>> to a microscopic small minority, and how UK leaders initiated a
>> process that will wipe the entire middle class from the surface
>> of our planet. When it is finished, the rich will disappear and
>> only poor and super rich are left.
>
> That sounds really bad, and quite believable. I haven't watched the videos yet.
>
>> Such strategies threaten our
>> "security" much more than all ISIL and AlQuaida suizide bombers
>> together ever could. The other thing I mentioned was TTIP:
>>
>> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB
>>
>> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the
>> petition.
>
> That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU.

Not at all. TTIP is a threat for all people in the EU and the USA.
It grants Big Business too much power, and takes democratic rights
from states and their people. I work towards a united world, not a
"united business"...

> TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an
> EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests,
> working against smaller competition and individuals.

Surely not EU politics. In concurrence to its members, the EU does
not grant big companies a special treatment. Actually: Even if the
EU parliament wished to, they could not, because they cannot enact
(better: *suspend*) taxes raised by its members. The right to levy
taxes (or worship them Big Business to keep jobs) still is left to
the member states. The EU itself does not raise taxes, so there is
no way to sponsor Big Business (like the member states do).


> And anti-democratic.


As anti-democratic as any other *democratically elected* political
representative.

> The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you" until you wake up one day and
> find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it negotiates makes it stronger
> and harder to pull away from.

Please get informed what the EU really is. I'm surely no expert in
EU internals, but I know enough to tell that your thoughts are not
describing EU politics. It is a little bit comparable to those who
want the "good old Deutschmark" back, because they do not like the
Euro as currency. "Europhobia" is like xenophobia (especially this
EU-wide islamophobia which suddenly grew to a markable pohenomenon
within a few months) or arachnophobia - fear of something we don't
know at all...

Regarding TTIP: This treaty is the work of lobbies and polititians
against all people living in the EU and USA. it is kept secret be-
fore our eyes, because its makers fear that citicens in the EU and
the USA never would sacrifice democratic rights or freedom for un-
limited commercialisation of human rights (e.g.: the privatisation
of DNA sequences or water supplies of entire regions).

BUT: You should be aware that this is kept secret on both sides of
the pond:

"I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me 'They have to
be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in
them, they would be opposed.'"

[Elizabeth Warren, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (USA)]

I am pretty sure people in the USA will not prevent D. Trump or H.
Clinton from signing TTIP, but with a little help from us European
people we can prevent that European politicians sign this treaty.

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris schrieb:
>>> On 29/03/2016 08:01, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>>> James Harris wrote:
>>>>> On 09/03/2016 21:29, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>>
>>> In summary, forcing people into an undemocratic political union that
>>> they don't want is ultimately
>>> unsustainable. It would be better to help people work together without
>>> requiring that they head
>>> towards becoming a single state.
>>
>> The extreme rigthists like Le Pen (F), Wilders (NL), Kaczyński
>> or Szydło (PL) and Orbán (HU) always were and still are strict
>> enemies of a united Europe. As nationalist forces, a united EU
>> would destroy their patridiotic dreams of one nation (or race)
>> ruling the entire world.
>>
>> Watch the events in Poland - do you think they follow a proper
>> path as you cite their anti-democratic ideology as an argument
>> against a united Europe? Neighbours with common cultural roots
>> and common history should keep care of each other for *better*
>> reasons than disdainful mammonism.
>
> You seem to have misunderstood my comments on the rise of anti-EU feeling. I cited examples of
> increasing support for anti-EU parties as evidence of dissatisfaction with the EU. Nothing I said
> should be interpreted as endorsing those parties.

All of them want to pocket all benefits coming along with the
(otherwise attacked) EU regulation, but deny to share a small
piece of their wealth with poor(er) countries. In my opinion,
Brexit is the same thing wrapped in cloth of different colour
with slightly different muster.

Sorry, but that's my *personal* point of view (which probably
is not very objective)...

>>>> Especially because the London Stock Exchange
>>>> and Real Estate Business are the driving force behind acce-
>>>> lerated redistribution of property and growing poverty. Not
>>>> only in GB. The entire Western World assimilated their idea
>>>> to generate money without offering real values in exchange,
>>>> for example: Computer generated profits with *not existing*
>>>> shares (the faster your machine and internet conection, the
>>>> higher your profit).
>>>
>>> I don't like to see dominant big corporations of any sort. I wonder if
>>> you recognise that the EU
>>> helps large companies at the expense of smaller competitors.
>>>
>>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072/Why-do-large-businesses-like-the-EU
>>
>> They will not ask you if you like them or not (as long as they
>> can make money they just will do it without asking any one for
>> permission).
>
> It is not a case of liking or not liking big businesses. The fact is that the EU gives them
> privileges and protections against their competitors. That makes them complacent. It also puts up
> prices we pay.
>
> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller suppliers.

Have a look at the *real* world market: Smaller suppliers are
swallowed by large ones who are swallowed by huge ones and so
on. The current economic model knows just one (holy) paradigm
called "growth". Having a closer look at this paradigm shows,
that even healthy companies are sold out, because they do not
generate enough interest yield.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_SE

>> Let us talk about real things: I often delivered plastic parts
>> for Nissan Motors to Johnson Control in Sunderland (pressed in
>> Augsburg). With open borders and domestic EU commerce, there's
>> one EU-wide tax to pay, but no toll or other costs. Voting for
>> Brexit, you *also* vote for customs, import taxes and controls
>> when entering or leaving British territory.
>
> No one is suggesting imposing import tariffs. (I don't know why you would think that.)
>
> There are border controls in place now.
>
> Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of that are people who want to
> scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU countries will want to impose
> tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have!

How do you think a break out works and why should the EU keep
their borders to any non-EU country open? If GB does not want
to belong to a united Europe, why should we want to keep open
borders to GB or dispense with collecting duty or taxes? With
Brexit, GB is just another trading partner like China, Russia
or the USA.

>> Any decision comes
>> at a cost and anything we do has consequences. In this case, a
>> car built in GB will get more expensive and it questionable if
>> Nissan will continue to build cars in the UK, because it costs
>> them a pound or two to compensate import taxes, customs, grown
>> transportation costs and other discomfort because a few people
>> voted to return to a time where the British Empire reached its
>> pinnacle (regardless of the fact that these times are over and
>> never will come back)...
>
> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain wanting to isolate itself. That
> is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious means. We still want to be
> thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and travel in neighbouring
> countries etc.
>
> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU

I guess you still did not get the point what I told until now
(in several replies): Union = united = solidarity. Solidarity
includes to share in good times and to get help in bad times.
It does not mean to grab what you can get and to deny to give
if you have overspill. Union also includes common rules for a
variety of stuff sold on a single European market in economic
sense and common European Law in political sense.

Cancelling membership in a Union will (and should!) have con-
sequences - you cannot just pitch on those things you want to
get without giving or agreeing to compromises.

>>> Saying that their waste and luxurious living is a small percentage of
>>> GDP is quite beyond my
>>> comprehension. There is no excuse for EU leaders to pay themselves
>>> high salaries and live and work
>>> in luxury.
>>>
>>> It may be a small percentage of GDP but it is still a lot of money.
>>
>> Yes. On the other hand, these are *representatives* of a union
>> with 500,000,000 citicens. Calculating the "per head" share of
>> 44,400,000 Euro, each European pays 8.88 Cent per anno to feed
>> the "luxury" of her/his representatives. Not too much compared
>> to the 68.86 Cent per head "Brits" grant their royals per anno
>> (including the toll for Dartford crossing)... ;)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_Crossing
>
> The royals don't set their own budget or expenses. That decision is made by politicians according to
> what they feel the royals need to pay their staff and expenses. The queen has public duties. The
> younger royals do also but often have their own secular employment.
>
> Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their expenses. Every penny. And all their
> claims are logged where anyone can see:
>
> http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/
>
> You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician claimed.
>
> By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians are given _unchecked_ expenses.
> They get the money whether they need it or not. They don't have to justify what they spend. And
> anything they don't spend they keep, topping up an already large salary.

I (partially) agree with transparency regarding all income of
our politicians. On the other hand, we created bureaucracy if
we demand to claim each cent politicians spent and to monitor
if we shall grant payment or if we deny to pay, because a sum
was unnecessarily spent. I plead for a reasonable wage in the
range of an average salary in the cuntry where the politician
lives (probably Belgium or France).

About the snipped part: It makes a mountain out of a molehill
(I posted the real numbers in comparison to your royals in my
previous reply). Moreover, it seems the "Brexit" is discussed
quite one-sided in GB, so I doubt British people will come to
a well-considered decision because there is so much emotional
overload fueled by your media.

>>>> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
>>>> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
>>>> Union like the UK or USA.
>>>
>>> True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!
>>
>> Do you really claim to live in a *dictatorship* since 1976?
>
> Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule. Perhaps an oligarchy.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

You still didn't answer my original question. Telling "No one
asked the people for 40 years" *means* "No one was allowed to
vote for 40 years", *because* people in GB delegate their own
voice to vote to politicians who then make decisions for you.

>> If
>> your answer is no: You (the British people) voted for previous
>> parliaments - you were not forced to vote for those who follow
>> the European idea and sign pro-European contracts. Democracies
>> do not have to start a referendum for each political decision:
>
> In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what they will do if they win an
> election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both before and after they get power.
> People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the politicians.
>
> Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too long. Politicians should not have
> such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time!

So when politicians of one party do not what you expected 'em
to do, you have the choice to vote for the other party or, if
no existing party meeted your expectations, you still had the
right to found your own party?

If so - why do you complain about a living democracy?

>> Isn't it up to the *citicens* to vote for candidates
>> who offer solutions matching their own political wishes? Don't
>> blame the majority not to care about wishes of minorities, but
>> blame politicians who promise political deeds just to increase
>> their personal might or wealth, but act completely contrary to
>> what they promised when they are elected and start to make de-
>> cisions.
>
> The system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case for minorities. That has
> happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up supporting the minority.

Isn't that the point behind pondering pro's and con's between
competing interests to guarantee safety for minorities?

>>>> The future will show that we will
>>>> not survive if we don't work together as close as possible.
>>>
>>> We do not need the EU in order to work together!
>>
>> That is what you - one of more than 64 million British folks -
>> believe (as no one can know this for real, it's just one valid
>> belief of many).
>
> No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on something we could do. We wouldn't
> need someone else to tell us that we must.
>
> If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science research or air quality
> improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives - they can still do so. We
> don't need to be in the same club to cooperate.

That's besides the point - we don't talk about you and me and
a few other friends or relatives, we talk about *500 million*
(516 million after Brexit and Turkey's membership as replace-
ment) people living in Europe.

>>> I guess most countries joined the EU or its predecessors for prosperity.
>>
>> Until the early 1970ies this is true. Thereafter, most leaders
>> advanced this pure commercial organisation into a cultural and
>> political Union with the final goal to found the United States
>> of Europe.
>
> Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be part of.

Sad, but okay.

>> Meanwhile, growing selfishness starts to divide the
>> mutually grown solidarity just to benefit from the weakness of
>> the poorest members of the Union. I am pretty sure the UK will
>> suffer from a "Brexit" as well as most other EU members, while
>> China, the USA and Japan will benefit from our faction.
>
> Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and cooperating. But that's not the
> plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or working together.
>
> The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that the EU will put up barriers
> to Brits if they leave the club.

See above - you cannot take without giving something back. If
a Union only is good to give, then it is better to get rid of
those who just want to take.

>> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the
>> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade...
>
> The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the centre is, I believe, not
> sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it needs fundamental democratic
> reform.

No one in the EU Parliament is "unelected":

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

I do not know how this is handled in GB, but I have voted for
the EU Parliament as long as it exists. If you're not allowed
to vote for the EU Parliamant directly, something is wrong in
your country.

>> I am aware of those who want to return to Middle Age politics,
>> and I don't see any difference between fundamentalist Muslims,
>> fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist patriots: They all
>> try to force the entire population to obey their rules. That's
>> nothing a democrat (or humanist) can agree with.
>
> That is what the EU does. It tries to force 500 million people to do what it thinks is right. And it
> gets away with it because it never has to put itself up for election.
>
> I don't know whether the UK will vote to stay in the EU or leave it. But people in Sweden and
> elsewhere have said that if the UK leaves then they want their own referenda so that they have a
> chance to get out too.
>
> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a supranational union which has been
> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of its existence so that its
> leaders know they are accountable to the people.

As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments,
because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of
foam. I think, British people have a major problem with their
politicians (as do most European countries at the moment). In
general, it is a problem of the accelerated redistribution of
wealth, making poor people poorer faster and faster (which is
a worldwide phenomenon). As long as politicians praise growth
as holy cow, this will not change, but lead to civil wars. If
we do not react now, it will be too late for a change.

Separation (or other unilateral activities) cannot solve this
problem - it only relocates markets from one spot to another.
Europe cannot survive current and future challenges, if we do
not stick together, and those who separate themselves will be
the first who drown.

>>>>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>>>>> Brits would still want to work
>>>>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>>>>> us don't want is lack of
>>>>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>>>>
>>>> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?
>>>
>>> Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No
>>> other trading bloc in the world
>>> has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core
>>> part of the "price" of membership.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
>>
>> What you are talking about does no longer exist since 1993.
>
> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was the goal.

Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from
1993 until now), so where's the problem?

>> With the process of re-uniting both German states, the leaders
>> of the EEC (namely Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher/Major) came to
>> the conclusion that only a united Europe might be fit to with-
>> stand the challenges of our future, so they ignited the "fire"
>> to develop the United States of Europe. It is based on solida-
>> rity and mutual assistance - the pillars of freedom and wealth
>> for all citicens. Now that many people throughout Europe don't
>> (want to) support this goal any longer, preferring nationalism
>> over solidarity
>
> I don't think people want to be nationalistic. If the EU satisfied their needs they would probably
> welcome it. But its disastrous policies have caused very high unemployment in Greece and Spain, for
> example, and people who cannot get work naturally become dissatisfied with the system which caused it.

The EU as such is not responsible for national tax reliefs in
its member countries. Which, by the way, was not just Greece,
Spain or other poorer countries, but rich like Germany and GB
as well. There is almost no country on this planet which does
not suffer from cheating international companies.

>> and neo-darwinism over assistance, we will get
>> oppression and poverty in the long run.
>
> The EU is helping to cause poverty now!

Definitely no. It still are the member states who are respon-
sible for their national budgets on their own. The money sent
to the EU is a minor portion of the entire budget (even in my
country which sends the largest sum to Bruxelles).

>> I don't know why folks
>> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts
>> of a few superrich,
>
> Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big corporates, the bigger fishing
> businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds when pushed but it is really
> designed to maintain protections on vested interests.

One more "no" - the member states flatter big business to get
jobs for their unemployed. Most taxes are collected from poor
workers and white collar employees, the least taxes are dona-
ted by international companies (whenever they are in the mood
to "do somethinmg good").

>> but they will earn their "price" (which is
>> total poverty with an optimized (= abolished) welfare system).
>> I hope I will die before this inhuman world is established...
>
> Not a good thing to talk about!

I'm writing from the shoulder... ;)

>> P.S.: Providing links to your own texts is a valid move, but I
>> did not see a single footnote citing independent sources
>> backing up your claims. As long as these are monologues,
>> they represent private *opinion* - nothing less, nothing
>> more. If you want to lend your words meaning, you should
>> furnish your claims with facts supporting the underlying
>> ideas.
>
> I don't claim my opinions as anything other than opinions. That's why I put my name at the bottom of
> a page - to indicate that it is just my comment.
>
> I would rather appeal to logic and reason than to cite a supposed authority.
>
> I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs etc. taken from reputable
> sources, and provided links to the originals.

It's not about "authorities", but, as I have shown, you often
build a logic building on bogus (assumed?) facts. With proper
citation of sources, erroneous assumptions could be avoided.

>> Here is a (actually my) philosophical view of the
>> problem:
>>
>>
>> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/introduction.html
>> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/02/living-in-pyramid-land-part-1.html
>>
>> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2010/03/living-in-pyramid-land-part-2.html
>>
>> http://thepoolofhumanity.blogspot.de/2015/06/living-in-pyramid-land-part-3.html
>
> Well, I read them. That's why I have been away for so long. ;-)
>
> I am not sure I understood them all but I can see you have put a lot of work and thought into them.

Well, it's still in progress, and I write some paragraphs per
decade or so. It's mainly about deception and how easy people
can be controlled with simple psychological tricks. Ads are a
good example how people are incited to buy things they do not
need. Separating people into classes and factions was another
field where psychological tricks bypass our consciuos logical
thinking - that's what is happening with Brexits, Grexits and
[whichever?-xits] at the moment: Humans are stirred up to act
against their true interests...

[Bernhard Schornak]

James Harris wrote:


> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?

Queen Elisabeth's birthday attracted much more attention in German
TV than Obama's short stop at Downing Street. Seems he is eager to
push TTIP as last political act before leaving the scene...

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100

Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half against,
in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in a UI" thread
where the conversation started back in February.

Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political
power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though the
situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment.

I just saw another article today which might be why Obama wants the
U.K. to stay in the E.U. The U.S. and E.U. has been working on a trade
agreement known at TIPP. I'd assume he'd want the U.K to be part of
that treaty, otherwise the U.S. might not be able to sell some products
in the U.K. That's assuming TIPP doesn't fail. Apparently, leaked
documents indicate the E.U. would need to relax certain laws to allow
U.S. companies to export products to the E.U. under the treaty.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

...

>>> https://stop-ttip.org/?noredirect=en_GB
>>>
>>> All democrats throughout the EU should participate and sign the
>>> petition.
>>
>> That's strange to see from someone who likes the EU.
>
>
> Not at all. TTIP is a threat for all people in the EU and the USA.
> It grants Big Business too much power, and takes democratic rights
> from states and their people. I work towards a united world, not a
> "united business"...

Well, AIUI, the EU is great for Big Business, Big Banks and similar. It
is far more pro multinational corporates than it is for the small shop
keeper.

It seems likely that if the EU continues to go the way it is then Europe
will end up in the power of the big corporations and small firms will be
squeezed out.

If you believed that the EU was a vehicle for large companies would that
change your mind about it? Could you be persuaded to think of a new
Europe in which the small firms and individuals had the greater say?

>> TTIP is shrouded in mystery but it is reputed to be very much an
>> EU thing: protect the big corporates and the vested interests,
>> working against smaller competition and individuals.
>
>
> Surely not EU politics. In concurrence to its members, the EU does
> not grant big companies a special treatment. Actually: Even if the
> EU parliament wished to, they could not, because they cannot enact
> (better: *suspend*) taxes raised by its members. The right to levy
> taxes (or worship them Big Business to keep jobs) still is left to
> the member states. The EU itself does not raise taxes, so there is
> no way to sponsor Big Business (like the member states do).

I wrote up some reasons to back up what I say. What do you think of these:

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1072

Now I have more information I could add to that list but it seems
relevant as it is.

>> And anti-democratic.
>
>
> As anti-democratic as any other *democratically elected* political
> representative.

Hardly. The Commission has long been the chief legislative body and is
fast becoming the executive. No one on the Commission is democratically
elected!

The only elected body, the Parliament, cannot draft new laws and cannot
make executive decisions. It can only vote on laws the Commission draws
up. And, in that, it has no more say than the Council of Ministers -
which is also unelected!

>> The EU is like a 'friend' who keeps saying "let me do this for you"
>> until you wake up one day and
>> find that it has all the power. Each trade deal such as TTIP that it
>> negotiates makes it stronger
>> and harder to pull away from.
>
>
> Please get informed what the EU really is. I'm surely no expert in
> EU internals, but I know enough to tell that your thoughts are not
> describing EU politics.

I have studied it. It was only after doing so that I came to the
conclusion that the UK has to leave it. I found it hard to believe what
a terrible model the EU had become from what was once a laudable dream.

That said, if you think I have something wrong about it or you want to
tell me what's good about it feel free. I am willing to see it
differently but I think I know enough to be sure that it is not right
for the UK and it is probably bad for citizens of other countries too.

ISTM that many think "we want to cooperate and we have the EU for that".
But I would suggest that the EU is not at all a good way to cooperate.
There are much better ways.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100
>>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay.
>>
>> Can you remind me of why?
>
> Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half against,
> in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in a UI" thread
> where the conversation started back in February.
>
> Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political
> power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though the
> situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment.

I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and political
power be better in the EU?

> I just saw another article today which might be why Obama wants the
> U.K. to stay in the E.U. The U.S. and E.U. has been working on a trade
> agreement known at TIPP. I'd assume he'd want the U.K to be part of
> that treaty, otherwise the U.S. might not be able to sell some products
> in the U.K. That's assuming TIPP doesn't fail. Apparently, leaked
> documents indicate the E.U. would need to relax certain laws to allow
> U.S. companies to export products to the E.U. under the treaty.

Yes, TTIP is causing disquiet in Europe. Bernhard also spoke out against
it in a recent post.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

> James Harris wrote:
>
>
>> Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe?
>
>
> Queen Elisabeth's birthday attracted much more attention in German
> TV than Obama's short stop at Downing Street. Seems he is eager to
> push TTIP as last political act before leaving the scene...

That is surprising. Why would Queen Elizabeth's birthday attract German
TV coverage? Is it perhaps a reminder of the days when Europe was
largely about monarchies?

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100
> >>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay.
> >>
> >> Can you remind me of why?
> >
> > Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half
> > against, in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in
> > a UI" thread where the conversation started back in February.
> >
> > Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political
> > power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though
> > the situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment.
>
> I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and
> political power be better in the EU?
>

My presumption is that things change and power shifts. Once that
happens, then the laws, structure of the E.U., can be changed to
be more fair, more respectful of laws of member countries, and more
equally represent non-dominant partners, i.e., not so focused and
controlled by Germany. The common currency lowers transaction costs,
and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also
likely be lower as a member. I'd also expect the E.U. to shift
from a more authoritarian to more democratic as other smaller
countries press for reforms. Lost freedoms can always be regained
at a later point in time.

It's really just a question of what "you" (i.e., country of U.K.)
want. Most of these trade, tax, and legal treaties are basically
- as you've seen with the formation of the E.U. - a way to merge
the economics, politics, legal systems, and law enforcement of all
countries in the world into a one world government. Did you really
think that this was just a conspiracy theory? ...

You only need look at what the UN, OECD, World Bank, Interpol, and
IMF are doing. Unified police force. Unified trade laws. Unified
economies. Unified laws. Universal taxation. Universal rights.
Universal copyright law. Universal identification. Universal police
video monitoring in public. Universal money flow monitoring via
banks and electronic funds. Etc. It's "Big Brother" for the entire
world. These actions are all driven by either money or fear or both.
Together, there is one direction where the world is moving. It's
moving, slowly, continuously, progressively, towards a single
totalitarian state.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

>>> Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political
>>> power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though
>>> the situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment.
>>
>> I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and
>> political power be better in the EU?
>>
>
> My presumption is that things change and power shifts. Once that
> happens, then the laws, structure of the E.U., can be changed to
> be more fair, more respectful of laws of member countries, and more
> equally represent non-dominant partners, i.e., not so focused and
> controlled by Germany.

The EU is indeed in the process of change. Unfortunately, the changes
are very much toward _more_ control from the centre, not less!

Where the US has a liberal approach to people's lives, many in Europe
feel differently. Humorously, you could say that their approach is "if
it moves, regulate it"! Many Europeans see absence of regulation as akin
to lawlessness. Yet, increases in regulation hold back things like the
enterprise that has allowed the US to flourish.

I hadn't thought of it in these terms before but as you used the term
"totalitarian" below it prompted me to realise that the EU is becoming
increasingly totalitarian. As well as controlling more and more of
people's lives (under the presumably laudable guise of regulating trade
standards and working conditions) it has virtually no opposition.

> The common currency lowers transaction costs,

Yes, that is a benefit of the single currency.

Unfortunately, it also locks participating countries into two things:

1. Elements of a common fiscal policy which, by its nature, is
controlled by the EU as a body which sits above the governments, rather
than by the governments themselves. In other words, those governments
lose some of the levers they would normally use in order to govern.

2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing in
times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of attracting the
foreign money they need to help them out of the crisis. Instead they
have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations such as Germany). These
banks and nations then impose various policies as a condition of the
loans. Thus the country in a crisis loses more power to the banks and
the wealthy countries.

Margaret Thatcher predicted that a single currency would lead to mass
unemployment and mass migrations of people.

https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/725090747586859008?lang=en-gb

It turns out she was absolutely right. Greece and Spain which are both
in the Eurozone have over 20% unemployment. The UK, outside the Euro,
has an unemployment rate of just 5%. And that is despite being a human
migration target!

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2016.png

Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km of
35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the
infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population
increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration from
other EU states.

Is my desire that the UK leave the EU beginning to make sense...? ;-)

Going back to the single currency, IMV it may one day work for people
but only once they amalgamate the zone to make it a single country. It
is the current half-way house which is having such a bad effect on many
lives.

> and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also
> likely be lower as a member.

Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade between
EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed relatively high
tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the goods we buy more
expensive rather than less so.

Also, _international_ trade tariffs have come down dramatically over the
last few decades. I cannot find the graph but IIRC the figures were
circa 15% in the 1970s and only about 3% now.

Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own
tariffs. To illustrate why that is a problem consider that the USA
recently imposed a high tariff on steel to protect US steelworks. EU
countries are not allowed to do that. The UK currently has steelworks
which are closing (at least one has already closed, others have
uncertain futures and are up for sale).

> I'd also expect the E.U. to shift
> from a more authoritarian to more democratic as other smaller
> countries press for reforms.

That would be nice but, unfortunately, the EU is in the process of going
in the other direction!

> Lost freedoms can always be regained
> at a later point in time.

If only! The history of the EU is exactly the opposite: freedoms, once
ceded to the EU, do not come back. That may sound surprising but it is
how the European mind works. The dominant European view is to want to be
collegiate, and to amalgamate. You guys in the US and we in the UK tend
to think differently. We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate.

As I say, a European superstate may be a goal that Europeans, on
average, are happy with. But in so many areas it is not a model that
Britain wants. We just don't think the same way.

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100
> > James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote:

[snip]

> Where the US has a liberal approach to people's lives, many in Europe
> feel differently. Humorously, you could say that their approach is
> "if it moves, regulate it"! Many Europeans see absence of regulation
> as akin to lawlessness.

...

> I hadn't thought of it in these terms before but as you used the term
> "totalitarian" below it prompted me to realise that the EU is
> becoming increasingly totalitarian. As well as controlling more and
> more of people's lives (under the presumably laudable guise of
> regulating trade standards and working conditions) it has virtually
> no opposition.

Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump,
but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising
to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who
would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it
that he merely opposing Obama's position.

> > The common currency lowers transaction costs,
>
> Yes, that is a benefit of the single currency.
>
> Unfortunately, it also locks participating countries into two things:
>
> 1. Elements of a common fiscal policy which, by its nature, is
> controlled by the EU as a body which sits above the governments,
> rather than by the governments themselves. In other words, those
> governments lose some of the levers they would normally use in order
> to govern.

I'm getting the impression that the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, and
Italy all have the same problem. Other countries have never been
empires and so seem to be more willing to become a state as part of a
union. The stronger countries have been empires at some point in
history. They're likely less willing to give up their authority and
rights they fought hard to earn to become a subject of another power.
If there is to be a union with those countries in it, that must happen.

> 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing
> in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of
> attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the
> crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations
> such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose various
> policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in a crisis
> loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries.

The U.S. has a common currency. Some states go into recessions while
others are growing rapidly. We have regional federal banks which
control the money supply. I'd suspect they do so regionally by making
more or fewer loans, and adjusting local interest rates. The rates are
always higher around large cities. Also, the effective value of our
currency varies by region. You may pay $7 a meal at a fast food
restaurant in one city, then fly to another and pay $22. Ditto
housing, etc. I'm not an expert in our money supply, but we've managed
to manage it, somehow, much of the time. So, I'm having a hard time
grasping why E.U. countries would have problems with devaluing when
needed. Does the E.U. have a central bank and regional banks? Or, is
each country still attempting to control their own supply
independently of the E.U.? Or, is the E.U. failing to regionally
manage the money supply? Isn't this an effect of each country still
issuing their own currency? I.e., there would be no exchange rate
between the E.U.'s EUR and the U.K.'s GBP, if the U.K.'s GBP didn't
exist. There is only one currency in the U.S.: USD. That may be
part of the problem.

> Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km
> of 35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the
> infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population
> increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration
> from other EU states.

Other countries are more "full," like China ... Others are much less
dense, like Russia. It seems Russia could handle some immigration from
China or elsewhere. Russia is in desperate need of capital. I'd
recommend that they sell half the country to China. It's my
understanding that most of their population is in the eastern portion.

Unfortunately, large parts of the U.S. are owned by the U.S.
government, especially in the west. However, half the people still
congregate and dwell in cities. So, that leaves much more room for the
rest of us.

My understanding is that in most E.U. countries, people live in the
cities and don't really migrate or develop outwards. Our national
highway system allowed for the development of the suburbs.

> > and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also
> > likely be lower as a member.
>
> Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade
> between EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed
> relatively high tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the
> goods we buy more expensive rather than less so.

Of course, the reverse is true. I.e., if the U.K. Brexit's, the U.K.
will be on the other side of the "trade cost barrier." So, the U.K.'s
goods will be overpriced in the E.U., perhaps like the U.S.' goods.
Since the U.K.'s goods will be more expensive to those countries in the
E.U., that will hurt the U.K.'s ability to sell product to and withing
the E.U.

This website visualizes imports and exports of countries.

Atlas of Economic Complexity
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/

57% of the U.K.'s exports are to the E.U. with 10% of that to Germany.
23% to Asia. 14% to Americas. 3% to Africa.

62% of the U.K.'s imports are from the E.U. with 15% of that from
Germany. 21% from Asia. 12% from Americas. 4% from Africa.

> Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own
> tariffs.

Well, that's the job of the E.U. now ... I'm getting the impression
that you don't see the E.U. as your equivalent of a federal government
like in the U.S., and you don't see England, Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland as state governments like in the U.S. You view the
U.K. as it's own sovereign and country. That perception must change if
the E.U. is to go forward. The E.U. must be the country and sovereign.

> You guys in the US and we in the UK tend to think differently.
> We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate.

If that's so, then you're better off ideologically with a Brexit due to
the different viewpoints. You'll only feel repressed by staying in a
regime with contrary viewpoints as your own, even if it's economically
advantageous. However, I still suspect an exit will harm you
financially due to your trade dependence on the E.U., unless your
country can quickly develop some new trading arrangements, e.g.,
perhaps with Americas including Mexico, India, China. I'd suggest
giving the U.S. what it wants on FATCA or OECD on CRS tax reporting and
hoping you can eliminate some trade barriers with the U.S. Even though
the U.S. laws were derived from British common laws, the U.S. laws do
not match your own. The U.K. will likely have to relax a bunch of laws
to encourage more free trade, at least with the U.S. If you guys do
exit, welcome to this side of the pond.


Rod Pemberton

[James Harris]

"Rod Pemberton" <NoHave...@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message
news:20160506193443.3ac849a8@_...

> On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100
> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump,
> but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising
> to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who
> would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it
> that he merely opposing Obama's position.

I heard his comment. It makes sense. While the UK being in the EU is
probably good for Obama and the USA it is, as I have been saying, not
good for the UK. Did I mention that one Australian Senator said that
nations asking the UK to remain an EU member were asking the UK to pay a
very high price?

I am quite disgusted that Obama and, apparently, Clinton as well have
both said the UK _should_ remain an EU member. By contrast, Trump's
comment that we'd be better to leave is welcome. As you say, he could be

merely opposing Obama's position.

I will respond below to your point about trade agreements.


...

> I'm getting the impression that the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, and
> Italy all have the same problem. Other countries have never been
> empires and so seem to be more willing to become a state as part of a
> union. The stronger countries have been empires at some point in
> history. They're likely less willing to give up their authority and
> rights they fought hard to earn to become a subject of another power.
> If there is to be a union with those countries in it, that must
> happen.

I have to say I don't think that's completely right. I cannot speak for
Spain or Italy but France and Germany apparently want to be part of the
political union. That is a common European view (i.e. continental Europe
excluding the UK want to merge to become a single country). Bernhard's
comments on this newsgroup are a good case in point. Such comments show
a common European desire for amalgamation into a single state.

>> 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing
>> in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of
>> attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the
>> crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations
>> such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose various
>> policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in a crisis
>> loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries.
>
> The U.S. has a common currency. Some states go into recessions while
> others are growing rapidly. We have regional federal banks which
> control the money supply. I'd suspect they do so regionally by making
> more or fewer loans, and adjusting local interest rates. The rates
> are
> always higher around large cities. Also, the effective value of our
> currency varies by region. You may pay $7 a meal at a fast food
> restaurant in one city, then fly to another and pay $22. Ditto
> housing, etc. I'm not an expert in our money supply, but we've
> managed
> to manage it, somehow, much of the time.

I don't know that it is a money /supply/ issue. After all, printing new
money causes devaluation pressure in the entire currency zone, not just
in a limited area.

> So, I'm having a hard time
> grasping why E.U. countries would have problems with devaluing when
> needed.

I am no expert either but AIUI, when the 2007/8 financial crash hit,
most countries were able to let their currencies devalue or cause them
to devalue by printing new money. That meant, broadly, that all
transactions within the country remained at the same price but that
exports and imports were affected.

Exports became easier to find buyers for and imports became more
expensive. That has the effect of bringing money in to the country (as
long as it has products to export) which, in turn, starts to push the
value of the currency back up again.

I suppose it is like water flow. If a vessel is lowered then water will
flow into it from linked vessels, tending to find a level. Lowering the
level is like devaluing a currency.

But when the 2007/8 crash hit, the countries in the eurozone were locked
together. The hardest hit could not devalue independently. That is a
consequence of having strong and weak economies using the same currency.

In the USA, if some states or even some small areas became much weaker
than others the central government could pull fiscal levers to boost the
weak economies at the expense of the strong ones. But while the eurozone
is under different governments that is not an option. There is no
central government with the fiscal powers needed.

Hence, my comment that they should either amalgamate completely or
separate. The current half-way house is simply a bad idea.

> Does the E.U. have a central bank and regional banks?

AIUI the eurozone has the ECB as a central bank.

> Or, is
> each country still attempting to control their own supply
> independently of the E.U.? Or, is the E.U. failing to regionally
> manage the money supply? Isn't this an effect of each country still
> issuing their own currency?

AIUI all those things are done centrally. The ECB (European Central
Bank) sets interest rates that apply to banks. And banks set rates that
apply to their customers.

In an effort to deal with trouble in the eurozone the ECB has been
lowering rates. It recently set at least one rate _below_ zero. In other
words, financial institutions would borrow money and, rather than paying
for the privilege, they would be paid for borrowing the money!

If that sounds like a desperate measure, my guess is that it is.

> I.e., there would be no exchange rate
> between the E.U.'s EUR and the U.K.'s GBP, if the U.K.'s GBP didn't
> exist. There is only one currency in the U.S.: USD. That may be
> part of the problem.
>
>> Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km
>> of 35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the
>> infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population
>> increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration
>> from other EU states.
>
> Other countries are more "full," like China ...

Sorry, no. The latest World Bank data puts China's population density at
145 per square km. The UK's office for national statistics puts
England's at 413.

We really don't have space for all the people who are currently here.

Nor do we have the housing. House prices have shot up over the last few
years and lots of people can no longer afford a house.

We are out of space for building more houses in many areas where the
jobs are. People are talking about building over forest land and public
green spaces.

Yet, while we are in the EU we cannot limit how many people move to the
UK.


...

>> > and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also
>> > likely be lower as a member.
>>
>> Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade
>> between EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed
>> relatively high tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the
>> goods we buy more expensive rather than less so.
>
> Of course, the reverse is true. I.e., if the U.K. Brexit's, the U.K.
> will be on the other side of the "trade cost barrier." So, the U.K.'s
> goods will be overpriced in the E.U., perhaps like the U.S.' goods.
> Since the U.K.'s goods will be more expensive to those countries in
> the
> E.U., that will hurt the U.K.'s ability to sell product to and withing
> the E.U.

That's not quite right. Many countries in Europe have free trade with
the EU but they are not in the EU. For example, there is a free trade
area called EFTA. It is closer in concept to your NAFTA, i.e. a trade
area but not a political project.

One option for the UK is to leave the EU and join EFTA. That is not
perfect for the UK as it would not, be default, help with the population
density problem but it _would_ allow the UK to trade without tariff
barriers in the EU.


...

>> Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own
>> tariffs.
>
> Well, that's the job of the E.U. now ... I'm getting the impression
> that you don't see the E.U. as your equivalent of a federal government
> like in the U.S., and you don't see England, Scotland, Wales, and
> Northern Ireland as state governments like in the U.S. You view the
> U.K. as it's own sovereign and country.

Yes. Believe me, the EU is nothing like your federal government.

> That perception must change if
> the E.U. is to go forward. The E.U. must be the country and
> sovereign.

Some European countries want that and they can go down that route if
they want. The UK absolutely does _not_ want that. The only arguments
here for the UK staying in the EU are around the relative uncertainty of
leaving. I have not heard anyone say that we should stay in to join a
superstate. Such an idea would go down like a lead balloon. The EU is
not even democratic!

>> You guys in the US and we in the UK tend to think differently.
>> We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate.
>
> If that's so, then you're better off ideologically with a Brexit due
> to
> the different viewpoints. You'll only feel repressed by staying in a
> regime with contrary viewpoints as your own, even if it's economically
> advantageous.

Indeed.

> However, I still suspect an exit will harm you
> financially due to your trade dependence on the E.U., unless your
> country can quickly develop some new trading arrangements, e.g.,
> perhaps with Americas including Mexico, India, China.

As I say above, there are other trade arrangements we could make
straight away, and keep our existing EU trading.

Longer term, IMO, the UK needs to be able to make and adjust its own
deals. It would be allowed to do that under EFTA.

The EU is far too slow to make trade deals or to respond to changing
world economic conditions. It is a 1960s behemoth that still exists
while the world has moved on.

As one campaigner here is fond of saying: there are only two continents
in the world which are not growing. One is Europe. The other is
Antarctica. Economically, the UK needs the freedom to arrange its own
trade with the parts of the world where the growth is.

> I'd suggest
> giving the U.S. what it wants on FATCA or OECD on CRS tax reporting
> and
> hoping you can eliminate some trade barriers with the U.S. Even
> though
> the U.S. laws were derived from British common laws, the U.S. laws do
> not match your own. The U.K. will likely have to relax a bunch of
> laws
> to encourage more free trade, at least with the U.S. If you guys do
> exit, welcome to this side of the pond.

On that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the UK could conclude a deal
with the US before the EU could, even though the EU has a few years'
head start.

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>> James Harris schrieb:

...

> All of them want to pocket all benefits coming along with the
> (otherwise attacked) EU regulation, but deny to share a small
> piece of their wealth with poor(er) countries. In my opinion,
> Brexit is the same thing wrapped in cloth of different colour
> with slightly different muster.
>
> Sorry, but that's my *personal* point of view (which probably
> is not very objective)...

No worries. In response, *my* personal view is that I would not mind
funds going to help poorer countries but I don't want them spent on the
salaries and expenses of politicians and bureaucrats.

I gather Norway, which is outside the EU, makes contributions to help
poorer countries but does not pay into the general EU budget. That
sounds fine to me.

Note, a country does not need to be in the EU in order to participate in
good schemes that help others.

...

>> As it happens, I do prefer to see much competition between smaller
>> suppliers.
>
>
> Have a look at the *real* world market: Smaller suppliers are
> swallowed by large ones who are swallowed by huge ones and so
> on.

Yes, that's not good.

...

>> Brexit is not about imposing trade barriers. The only ones talking of
>> that are people who want to
>> scare UK voters to remain in the EU. They say that if we leave then EU
>> countries will want to impose
>> tariffs on us as a punishment for leaving. Nice neighbours to have!
>
>
> How do you think a break out works and why should the EU keep
> their borders to any non-EU country open? If GB does not want
> to belong to a united Europe, why should we want to keep open
> borders to GB or dispense with collecting duty or taxes?

Many reasons:

* Trade is not a reward for good behaviour. Trade is what provides the
economy to make other schemes possible.

* Countries around the world trade with each other. They don't have to
pay into a political superstate in order to do so.

* The UK is a net buyer of EU goods. If the EU was really malicious
enough to cut trading ties then the remaining EU countries would suffer.

* Other European countries are in EFTA and have no EU tariffs. Why
should the UK be the only European country other than Belarus and Russia
which does not trade freely with the rest of the EU?

* The UK could trade with the Commonwealth - which it should never have
turned its back on but had to in order to join the EEC.

* Outside the EU the UK could - and I hope will - build good
relationships with Africa, especially in products where the EU external
tariffs are high. An independent UK could help boost the economies of
poor African countries so that they can develop via their own means,
rather than relying on handouts. Did you hear that the EU had imposed a
high tariff on Kenya's flower exports due to an administrative failure
in Kenya? When farmers in Afghanistan grow plants to make drugs,
wouldn't it be better to encourage the growth of flowers in Africa?

> With
> Brexit, GB is just another trading partner like China, Russia
> or the USA.

No. Free trade within Europe is there already. In fact, AIUI there is EU
free trade with countries further afield such as Mexico.

Free trade and open trade no longer require proximity. That is an idea
which is out of date. Average world tariffs have dropped dramatically.
The EU's external protectionist barriers, by contrast, make what we buy
from outside more expensive, and help protect vested interests behind
the EU wall.

...

>> Goodness! This is nothing to do with Empire! Nor is it about Britain
>> wanting to isolate itself. That
>> is a myth put about by people who want to win this debate by devious
>> means. We still want to be
>> thought of as European and be good friends and neighbours, to work and
>> travel in neighbouring
>> countries etc.
>>
>> Why would Brits want to leave the EU? My answer is at
>>
>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1110/Why-would-Brits-want-to-leave-the-EU
>>
>
>
> I guess you still did not get the point what I told until now
> (in several replies): Union = united = solidarity.

I get it. What I am saying to you and you are apparently not getting is
that unity and solidarity do not depend on the EU. Nor do they depend on
"solidarity" being imposed on people by a superior authority.

> Solidarity
> includes to share in good times and to get help in bad times.

Fine. Happy to do that. Isn't the IMF one organisation that we all pay
into and from which countries can borrow when needed?

Similar organisations can be used or set up where more are needed. There
could be a climate fund, a healthcare fund, an education fund etc.

> It does not mean to grab what you can get and to deny to give
> if you have overspill.

No one I know of is suggesting that.

> Union also includes common rules for a
> variety of stuff sold on a single European market in economic
> sense and common European Law in political sense.

You can have trade rules, just as you can have all the other things I
mentioned above, without having to be in a political union.

European countries which want to merge into one should probably just get
on with it and do so. Having a single currency between multiple states
is just hurting the poorer states.

However, before merging into a single state, be sure that you have
thought through all the consequences and that it is what you and a
significant majority really want to do.

> Cancelling membership in a Union will (and should!) have con-
> sequences - you cannot just pitch on those things you want to
> get without giving or agreeing to compromises.

Why? Why would you force countries and peoples to buy in to the entire
package when they don't want all of it?

Some of our neighbours seem to say: "unless you do everything we do we
won't let you play in our garden"! That seems to me immature. Surely
mature people would say: "what are the areas in which we can work
together? Let's see what we can all do to benefit the people for whom we
are responsible?"

In other words, why not let people choose the parts they want to join?
If each part has its own associated costs then no nation will gain an a
priori advantage from being part of or not being part of any one scheme.
But they will be _free_ to make their own decisions over what is best
for their own people.

They will also be free to join or withdraw from each scheme as their own
needs change over time (subject to a notification period, of course).
That is surely the more adult and more sensible approach.


...

>> Unlike EU bureaucrats, UK politicians have to account for their
>> expenses. Every penny. And all their
>> claims are logged where anyone can see:
>>
>> http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/
>>
>> You can search there to find out exactly what expenses a politician
>> claimed.
>>
>> By contrast, in addition to their enormous salaries, EU politicians
>> are given _unchecked_ expenses.
>> They get the money whether they need it or not. They don't have to
>> justify what they spend. And
>> anything they don't spend they keep, topping up an already large salary.
>
>
> I (partially) agree with transparency regarding all income of
> our politicians. On the other hand, we created bureaucracy if
> we demand to claim each cent politicians spent and to monitor
> if we shall grant payment or if we deny to pay, because a sum
> was unnecessarily spent. I plead for a reasonable wage in the
> range of an average salary in the cuntry where the politician
> lives (probably Belgium or France).

Cool.

> About the snipped part: It makes a mountain out of a molehill
> (I posted the real numbers in comparison to your royals in my
> previous reply). Moreover, it seems the "Brexit" is discussed
> quite one-sided in GB, so I doubt British people will come to
> a well-considered decision because there is so much emotional
> overload fueled by your media.

The UK's net membership fee to the EU is high. It would have allowed the
UK to pay into some Europe-wide schemes and still wipe out a lot of the
austerity measures that poorer people in the UK have had to face over
the last few years. So the EU 'tax' has a deleterious effect on the
poorest in our societies.

It is not just the amount, though. IMO the money paid to Eurocrats in
salaries and expenses has a bad effect on them. Giving them far too much
money makes them insensitive to the needs of real people. However well
intentioned, it separates them from the lives of those who pay their
salaries and their expenses. They live in luxury and hob-nob with
similarly-paid people from big banks, big businesses, and big
organisations. They all become focussed on their own overpaid world and
detached from reality. As a consequence they govern badly.

>>>>> Come on, no one forced your parliament to sign any of those
>>>>> contracts to connect all European countries and grow into a
>>>>> Union like the UK or USA.
>>>>
>>>> True, though no one has asked _the people_ for over 40 years!
>>>
>>> Do you really claim to live in a *dictatorship* since 1976?
>>
>> Not a dictatorship, no. But the EU is an undemocratic form of rule.
>> Perhaps an oligarchy.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
>
>
> You still didn't answer my original question.

About a dictatorship? No, I would say an oligarchy. But I answered
that.... If not that then what was your original question?

> Telling "No one
> asked the people for 40 years" *means* "No one was allowed to
> vote for 40 years", *because* people in GB delegate their own
> voice to vote to politicians who then make decisions for you.

We delegate to politicians two things:

1. The right to make executive decisions on our behalf - i.e. to respond
to the unexpected emergencies that happen over the period of their office.

2. The authority to implement their manifesto promises.

We do not give then the authority to remove powers from us, the people,
or do implement major policies that they have not asked us about. Stuff
like that should be done in a referendum.

Also, AFAIK, for over 40 years no UK party has had an accountable
manifesto promise about the EU. We have therefore not been able to vote
on EU membership - even as just one point in a manifesto - for all that
time.

Since the EU has acquired more and more powers in the intervening period
we have lost some of our democratic rights and the supremacy of the people.

Nor, AIUI, have many of the people over whom the EU rules been asked for
their view. Why don't countries put EU membership to their populations
every few years? They should. The people of this continent must be the
ones who are in charge, never the politicians.

I will get back to the rest of your post. It was quite long!

--
James Harris

[James Harris]

On 03/05/2016 19:14, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 18:33, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

...

>>> If
>>> your answer is no: You (the British people) voted for previous
>>> parliaments - you were not forced to vote for those who follow
>>> the European idea and sign pro-European contracts. Democracies
>>> do not have to start a referendum for each political decision:
>>
>> In the UK, politicians are expected to set out in a manifesto what
>> they will do if they win an
>> election. The media test them against their manifesto promises both
>> before and after they get power.
>> People judge by the policies and the perceived character of the
>> politicians.
>>
>> Personally, I think the UK's current fixed five-year terms are too
>> long. Politicians should not have
>> such a long mandate. They can get up to too much mischief in that time!
>
>
> So when politicians of one party do not what you expected 'em
> to do, you have the choice to vote for the other party or, if
> no existing party meeted your expectations, you still had the
> right to found your own party?
>
> If so - why do you complain about a living democracy?

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me.

Founding one's own party is not very practical!

>>> Isn't it up to the *citicens* to vote for candidates
>>> who offer solutions matching their own political wishes? Don't
>>> blame the majority not to care about wishes of minorities, but
>>> blame politicians who promise political deeds just to increase
>>> their personal might or wealth, but act completely contrary to
>>> what they promised when they are elected and start to make de-
>>> cisions.
>>
>> The system is imperfect but it is up to politicians to make the case
>> for minorities. That has
>> happened here a number of times so that the majority ends up
>> supporting the minority.
>
>
> Isn't that the point behind pondering pro's and con's between
> competing interests to guarantee safety for minorities?

Well, the safety of a nation's citizens is one of the fundamental duties
of a government. It should not require debate.


...

>> No, it is self evident. If you and I wanted to work together on
>> something we could do. We wouldn't
>> need someone else to tell us that we must.
>>
>> If European neighbours want to work together - lets say on science
>> research or air quality
>> improvement or anti-terror measures or third-world trade initiatives -
>> they can still do so. We
>> don't need to be in the same club to cooperate.
>
>
> That's besides the point - we don't talk about you and me and
> a few other friends or relatives, we talk about *500 million*
> (516 million after Brexit and Turkey's membership as replace-
> ment) people living in Europe.

By "we" I meant all European nations. We, as nations, can work together
without being part of the same superstate.


...

>> Yes. That USoE single country is something that Brits don't want to be
>> part of.
>
>
> Sad, but okay.

If the UK leaves, you guys will be able to get the superstate you want
without the UK continually slowing you down!


...

>> Yes, we /would/ all suffer from a Brexit if we stopped trading and
>> cooperating. But that's not the
>> plan. As I say, there is no need for any of us to stop cooperating or
>> working together.
>>
>> The only talk of putting up barriers is coming from those who say that
>> the EU will put up barriers
>> to Brits if they leave the club.
>
>
> See above - you cannot take without giving something back. If
> a Union only is good to give, then it is better to get rid of
> those who just want to take.

Trade and cooperation _are_ a two-way activities. Both sides give and
both sides take. I don't agree with your suggestion that a country has
to accept political integration in order to have free trade. AFAIK,
around the world, only the EU mandates ever closer political union. All
other trading blocs are about trade.

The EU's political nation-building is totally unnecessary and very
likely a bad idea even for the countries which want to merge into one.

For example, two of the EU's biggest policies: free movement of people
and a single currency are both in the process of failing when faced with
their first big tests. IMO they were both naive and idealistic.

>>> It already split Europe into parts. The damage done during the
>>> last one or two years cannot be fixed in the coming decade...
>>
>> The EU's model of having unelected people imposing control from the
>> centre is, I believe, not
>> sustainable. If the EU wants to survive as a governmental system it
>> needs fundamental democratic
>> reform.
>
>
> No one in the EU Parliament is "unelected":
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parliament
>
> I do not know how this is handled in GB, but I have voted for
> the EU Parliament as long as it exists. If you're not allowed
> to vote for the EU Parliamant directly, something is wrong in
> your country.

I didn't mention the EP! I could make a case for it's lack of democratic
legitimacy but there are better examples:

The main power in the EU is with the Commission. The second is probably
the Council of Ministers. Neither of those are elected.

In fact, is is sometimes politicians who have just been rejected by the
electorates who go on to get cushy jobs in Brussels. They are chosen by
their peers, not by electorates.


...

>> People should not have to ask for a referendum on membership of a
>> supranational union which has been
>> granted political power. Periodic referenda should be a condition of
>> its existence so that its
>> leaders know they are accountable to the people.
>
>
> As I have shown above - your arguments are no real arguments,
> because they ignore all facts and erect a castle on a base of
> foam.

On the contrary, I don't think you have shown anything of the sort. I
have provided reasons for the points I have made.

> I think, British people have a major problem with their
> politicians (as do most European countries at the moment). In
> general, it is a problem of the accelerated redistribution of
> wealth, making poor people poorer faster and faster (which is
> a worldwide phenomenon). As long as politicians praise growth
> as holy cow, this will not change, but lead to civil wars. If
> we do not react now, it will be too late for a change.
>
> Separation (or other unilateral activities) cannot solve this
> problem - it only relocates markets from one spot to another.
> Europe cannot survive current and future challenges, if we do
> not stick together, and those who separate themselves will be
> the first who drown.

Brits still want to stick with and work together with European
neighbours. From what _you_ have said, it would be the European
neighbours who want to stop cooperating and trading if we leave the EU,
in some sort of punishment. If countries really do think that way then
they seem immature.

I don't believe anyone would really stop cooperating and trading. It is
in no one's interests to do so. The toys may be ejected from the pram in
a great bluster. But after a while reality will set in.

>>>>>> I don't see the UK's potential separation from the EU as "division".
>>>>>> Brits would still want to work
>>>>>> together, trade, and cooperate with European neighbours. What many of
>>>>>> us don't want is lack of
>>>>>> democracy and rule from a supranational government.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't demand the benefits if you deny to pay the price?
>>>>
>>>> Ask yourself /why/ supranational government is part of the price. No
>>>> other trading bloc in the world
>>>> has political integration as its aim. Only the EU has that as a core
>>>> part of the "price" of membership.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
>>>
>>> What you are talking about does no longer exist since 1993.
>>
>> I am puzzled. You yourself said that the United States of Europe was
>> the goal.
>
>
> Yes. The EEC (until 1993) was the predecessor of the EU (from
> 1993 until now), so where's the problem?

I'm afraid you have lost me a bit. I don't see a problem so I cannot
explain where it is!

My point remains that trade and cooperation should not be a "price" for
yielding democracy. Trade and cooperation are the natural consequences
of life, and go on all round the world. The EU's one-size-fits-all
approach is unwise.

I would anticipate that New Zealand trades and cooperates with
Australia. Are you saying that the New Zealanders should not do so
unless they agree to amalgamate with Australia, to become one country?

Such an idea is absurd. New Zealand is its own state, and there is
nothing wrong with them being happy as a separate country. And being
separate does not prevent them engaging with their larger neighbour.

Nor is there any reason for the UK to feel it has to be part of a
European superstate.

...

>> The EU is helping to cause poverty now!
>
>
> Definitely no. It still are the member states who are respon-
> sible for their national budgets on their own. The money sent
> to the EU is a minor portion of the entire budget (even in my
> country which sends the largest sum to Bruxelles).

Since 2013 have you not heard reports that Greeks and their children do
not have enough to eat? This is modern Europe, not the third world!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/greece-food-crisis-summer-austerity

Look at the unemployment rates in Croatia, Spain and Greece:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2016.png

Compare the rates with those of countries outside the EU, and especially
note the effect of the flagship policy of the euro on unemployment:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/6/69/Unemployment_rates_EU-28_EA-19_US_and_Japan_seasonally_adjusted_January_2000_March_2016.png

>>> I don't know why folks
>>> support mechanisms to shuffle the wealth of many onto accounts
>>> of a few superrich,
>>
>> Again, that characterises the EU. It favours the superrich, the big
>> corporates, the bigger fishing
>> businesses etc. Oh, it says it is working for people and it responds
>> when pushed but it is really
>> designed to maintain protections on vested interests.
>
>
> One more "no" - the member states flatter big business to get
> jobs for their unemployed.

I would say they focus on big businesses in order to promote jobs. That
sounds like a good goal. But it means that the big businesses get
advantages over smaller competitors who cannot provide so many jobs. So
the big businesses win. The competitors lose out. Overall competition
drops. Consumers have to pay more. And the big business becomes
relatively complacent, thereby reducing growth and reducing the number
of jobs available. Every populated continent is growing apart from Europe.

High EU regulation levels are proportionally less costly for big
businesses to deal with.

Big businesses have lobbying access and therefore influence in the EU
institutions. Again, that helps them persuade the EU decision makers to
do what's best for the big businesses but not what is best for us.

> Most taxes are collected from poor
> workers and white collar employees, the least taxes are dona-
> ted by international companies (whenever they are in the mood
> to "do somethinmg good").

Fair taxation is a very big issue. I could make some comments but that
will take us off at a tangent.

...

>> I have included links to facts where relevant, and embedded graphs
>> etc. taken from reputable
>> sources, and provided links to the originals.
>
>
> It's not about "authorities", but, as I have shown, you often
> build a logic building on bogus (assumed?) facts.

I have to say that AFAICS you have not shown any such thing.

--
James Harris

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100

No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on where that money
goes. Money can be created electronically or physically printed
without causing deflationary pressure. The key is for it to not
enter into the supply of money already in circulation, i.e., held
or stored by some legal entity.

E.g., when foreign banks buy U.S. currency and the U.S. is "printing"
money, that money goes offshore and is held by the banks. That money
doesn't circulate, at least, not at first. I.e., in the main economy,
the value of a dollar won't change because the supply hasn't changed
there. This is because none of the new money was actually added to
the money in circulation. This technique has been used by various
central banks, including China. Once the foreign banks return the
money into our economy, it'll deflate, e.g., China starts selling or
dumping U.S. currency it once held.

> In an effort to deal with trouble in the eurozone the ECB has been
> lowering rates. It recently set at least one rate _below_ zero. In
> other words, financial institutions would borrow money and, rather
> than paying for the privilege, they would be paid for borrowing the
> money!

Yes, I read about that. That's an entire conversation by itself.
I.e., first, they eliminated the gold standard. Now, they're
eliminating fiat currency or cash. Electronic funds is all that
remains. Something is afoot.

Negative prices or rates are always interesting. It usually
means the market is "broken" in some way. E.g., I recently
read an article where the price "paid" for oil was negative.
It was a type of oil that's not easy to process and the only
refinery had reached maximum capacity. It was costing the oil
producer too much money to store the oil. So, they paid the
refinery to take the oil, resulting in a negative price paid
by the refinery.

> Many countries in Europe have free trade with
> the EU but they are not in the EU.

Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ...

Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be
allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA?

If the U.K. Brexit's, would it be likely or unlikely that it formed
a free trade agreement with Ireland? Old wounds die hard ...

You mentioned the EFTA. Wikipedia says that only has four countries:
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. Joining EFTA would be a
way for product to enter into the E.U after which it could possibly be
shipped throughout the E.U. duty free. Unfortunately, my understanding
is that Beek, Limburg, Netherlands is the primary distribution hub that
serves the E.U. Are there other distribution hubs in the EFTA
countries? I guess product could be shipped to Switzerland or
Liechtenstein under the EFTA then shipped back to Netherlands for
distribution ... (?)


Rod Pemberton