EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 139
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:50 Makro wrote: i'm really enjoying the mess right now, it's extremely funny to witness history History is a lot funnier from a distance than when it might actually affect you. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4433 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:44 Reaps wrote: What i find annoying is the younger generation blaming the older voters "we have to live with this" it's not like the older voters are simply going to disappear in the next 20-40 years, we all have to live with it. What an extremely selfish way to act. Thing is if their turnout was the same as the pensioners they would have won this thing easily. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:46 Dan HH wrote: Brits, how likely do you think it is that you'll actually leave the single market? Not very. The Brexit camp is very divided and whatever they replace the EU membership with will have to pass the house of commons which is still a very pro-EU body. There is a huge division between the people and the power created by the FPTP electoral system in which minority opinions are discarded in favour of the more mainstream ones. UKIP have no power in parliament, Labour would vote against leaving the single market and so would half the Tories. The actual execution of the Brexit will be a nightmare because it has to pass through political structures who have no desire or requirement to facilitate it. Say Boris becomes PM and the Conservatives introduce a "leave the EU" bill to Parliament. It gets debated like any other bill and then they vote. The Labour party, the Lib Dems and the SNP all vote against it, the Conservative party whip tells people they have to vote for it but Boris didn't lead them to an election victory, he became their leader by default and they have their own interests and opinions so a minority of them vote against the bill. The bill is defeated and the UK stays in the EU. What then? | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:52 LegalLord wrote: History is a lot funnier from a distance than when it might actually affect you. it's gonna affect us all, see my location | ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
"The EU leaders will meet, discuss and think. And then, they will design the solution: We need more integration, more regulation, more centralization!" :-))) | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
| ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:02 ahswtini wrote: is invoking article 50 a one-way process? does it commit the uk to leaving once it starts? It is a process of negotiations, that will last 2 years. But I do not think, it will start withing the next few months. More in 2017 I guess. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4433 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:59 Diabolique wrote: Reactions from Czech press: "The EU leaders will meet, discuss and think. And then, they will design the solution: We need more integration, more regulation, more centralization!" :-))) Yup, their goal is always more power. Doing that of course will increase euroscepticism across member states so they're in a fight against time.Create a unified European superstate with an EU army before anymore individual nation states vote to get out of the EU.Then the Eurocrats can keep their cushy EUR20,000/month jobs w/perks and generous pensions plus they have the most important thing of all.... power! | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Organized religion is an expansive, exclusive and subversive element that actively works against the values and norms of a secular society to the best of its abilities. It's happening right now in Turkey as well as Poland, to stay balanced. So there has to be a pragmatic outlook on this outside of some contentious theoretical morality. Religious people can go live in religious societies alongside their peers who share their views and expectations. This goes for all religions though Muslims are particularly problematic for reasons that, should you be unable to understand them yourself, no one will ever be able to explain to you. I don't understand how correctly identifying Islam (or any group of people who demand special treatment for religious i.e. technically speaking irrational and unjustifiable reasons) as a serious impediment to a harmonious secular society is racist. Islam is not a race. If you need any kind of special treatment outside the privacy of your home in order to satisfy your religious imperative your place is in a religious society. | ||
|
stilt
France2755 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote: This is why a double referendum is needed. The “Are you for sure?” referendum. The liberals and democracy, ahahahahahahah, and you talk about intellectual honestly? Do you even know how to think? | ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:06 Kickboxer wrote: Secular societies should actively endeavor to stay secular and limit the influx of new and the public practices of existing religious population. If people think this is fascist or oppressive they are not thinking in terms of reality but theory. Organized religion is an expansive, exclusive and subversive element that actively works against the values and norms of a secular society to the best of its abilities. It's happening right now in Turkey as well as Poland, to stay balanced. So there has to be a pragmatic outlook on this outside of some contentious theoretical morality. Religious people can go live in religious societies alongside their peers who share their views and expectations. This goes for all religions though Muslims are particularly problematic for reasons that, should you be unable to understand them yourself, no one will ever be able to explain to you. I don't understand how correctly identifying Islam (or any group of people who demand special treatment for religious i.e. technically speaking irrational and unjustifiable reasons) as a serious impediment to a harmonious secular society is racist. Islam is not a race. If you need any kind of special treatment outside the privacy of your home in order to satisfy your religious imperative your place is in a religious society. Islam is fine as long as it does not have over 50% of votes in the country. After it reaches 50%, they will change the society to non secular. Exactly what will happen in Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden and others ... in 20-30 years? | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:09 Diabolique wrote: Islam is fine as long as it does not have over 50% of votes in the country. After it reaches 50%, they will change the society to non secular. Exactly what will happen in Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden and others ... in 20-30 years? Don't take his word for it, ask the remaining Hindus in Pakistan. Both of them. | ||
|
stilt
France2755 Posts
On June 24 2016 23:08 Nebuchad wrote: Let's talk more about your last post. If we had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between people and ideas, a policy against refugees would target ideas and not people? There is no world view in which this is remotely logical, so this wasn't a rational post. You've just thrown "intellectual honesty" into a sentence cause you think it makes you look like you have a point. Have you ever considered that if all you can resort to to explain your position is nonsensical one-liners, perhaps you were in a bubble of your own? So a policy against Islam would be racist? Didn't know Islam was a race, i guessed it was an ideology like communism, or neoliberalism... What you say is not a point of view or a perspective, that's just bullshit. | ||
|
JazVM
Germany1196 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:14 JazVM wrote: From the German news coverage I got the impression that the main selling point of the Brexit supporters was immigration. From what I understand, what they mean is actually to stop the freedom of movement for workers. I highly doubt that Britain can have access to the common market without acknowledge the fundamental freedoms of the EU. I also highly doubt that any politician has any interest in GB not beeing part of the common market. In the end, I think a lot of things will just stay the same as they are now. British politicians will make a deal that let's the common voters have the impression that they achieved their goal, where in the end GB will just be a de facto EU member. except now they no longer have a vote in the regulations they will have to follow to be allowed to trade with the EU. | ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:11 DickMcFanny wrote: Don't take his word for it, ask the remaining Hindus in Pakistan. Both of them. Well, I talked to several Christians in Pakistan ... and they were fine. They were living in a hostile country, but they loved the country as it was their country. They were born in it, it was islamic during their whole life, they were used to it, so it was not a problem. But I expect, it will be a problem when the today's young non religious people in Western Europe wake up in 30 years and learn, this is not the country, in which they were born and were living their whole life. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12486 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:13 stilt wrote: So a policy against Islam would be racist? Didn't know Islam was a race, i guessed it was an ideology like communism, or neoliberalism... What you say is not a point of view or a perspective, that's just bullshit. Our friend reacted to the notion that the policies he presented apply on people. He doesn't think that's the case. In other words, he argues that a policy against islam isn't a policy against muslims. This is a nonsensical point. If I can't even get that acknowledgement, how are we going to get anywhere? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:03 Diabolique wrote: It is a process of negotiations, that will last 2 years. But I do not think, it will start withing the next few months. More in 2017 I guess. this didnt answer my question. my question is, when you invoke article 50, will it still be possible to abort the process to leave the EU | ||
|
Half the Sky
Germany9029 Posts
On June 25 2016 00:14 JazVM wrote: From the German news coverage I got the impression that the main selling point of the Brexit supporters was immigration. From what I understand, what they mean is actually to stop the freedom of movement for workers. I highly doubt that Britain can have access to the common market without acknowledge the fundamental freedoms of the EU. I also highly doubt that any politician has any interest in GB not beeing part of the common market. In the end, I think a lot of things will just stay the same as they are now. British politicians will make a deal that let's the common voters have the impression that they achieved their goal, where in the end GB will just be a de facto EU member. For those in casual/unskilled labour or in certain economically disadvantaged areas, yes that was a selling point but others not necessarily in that frame used the vote as an anti-banking industry/government/anti-establishment vote. | ||
| ||
