|
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 |
On July 09 2016 20:05 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already. With regards to xenophobic attacks in the UK: this is obviously very sad, but it is also worth drawing attention to the response of communities to them. A Romanian shop was set on fire in Norwich, for example, but by the next day a community effort had raised many times the worth of the damages for the owners of the shop. The kind of people responsible for these attacks are the same people who would attack English people on any other day of the week. If you think India will negotiate a real FTA you're fooling yourself. India is insanely protectionist and their Free trade agreements are hardly worthy of the name.
Not all free trade agreements result in fully free trade... they are all at least partially protectionist. Nothing wrong with it, ESPECIALLY for a developing nation.
Sometimes it can be about freer trade.
|
On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already.
Diplomatic statements aside, India, China & US are in a not much different position than Norway when it comes to something concrete, because they can't even know what the UK can bargain and by what rules until your situation is clear. The terms of trade deals with 3rd parties are significantly influenced by whether you stay in the EEA, or opt for a Switzerland type deal, or ditch the EEA completely.
Anything other than preliminary talks will have to wait until Brexit is finished and the UK's decision regarding the EEA happens. You will not sign new trade deals until leaving the EU is complete, even your minister of trade & investment said as much, and once that happens there's the problem of capacity, no one can effectively negociate even 4-5 trade deals at the same time, let alone 50+.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On July 09 2016 20:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already. Diplomatic statements aside, India, China & US are in a not much different position than Norway when it comes to something concrete, because they can't even know what the UK can bargain and by what rules until your situation is clear. The terms of trade deals with 3rd parties are significantly influenced by whether you stay in the EEA, or opt for a Switzerland type deal, or ditch the EEA completely. Anything other than preliminary talks will have to wait until Brexit is finished and the UK's decision regarding the EEA happens. You will not sign new trade deals until leaving the EU is complete, even your minister of trade & investment said as much, and once that happens there's the problem of capacity, no one can effectively negociate even 4-5 trade deals at the same time, let alone 50+.
Will probably have to hire trade negotiators from abroad to handle the work load. Oh sweet irony.
|
On July 09 2016 19:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 09:30 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 08:37 Shield wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. I don't pretend to have great mind, but I can't honestly think of something that is as fair as democracy. It's absolutely stupid when you have stupid population, but it can be really nice when you have intelligent people. Solution: encourage people to be smart individuals. Encourage people to be proactive in politics. I don't know how, but less lying/corrupt politicians is a start. Some people lose faith in politics and stop caring because of all the lying politicians. Just like Brexit's big promises. Maybe truth should be enforced by law for politicians somehow to discourage them from lying? Another thing is more transparency. There are many systems which can be better in theory. If we assume ideal situations almost any political system IS better in theory. This is because democracy is slow. In an ideal situation with perfect people tyranny is probably the best system with one super smart guy telling everybody what to do. Of course that doesnt work well in reality. The greatest weakness of democracy is also its strength in real life. The slow processes make it hard for corrupt people gain a lot of power. The longer it takes you to execute your evil schemes the higher is the chance somebody will notice and stop you. On July 09 2016 09:04 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30. Because in theory we as ideal people would not vote for the candidates that do the best thing for us personally but those who do the best thing for the entire nation. If everybody was the ideal, super smart person, we would vote for the candidate / party which will do the best thing for the nation in the long run. We dont do that because we are stupid, greedy, needy, etc. Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of democracy. It is precisely because people vote in their own interests that democracy works.
Yes and no. People voting for their self interest is good in theory, but in general people are short-sighted and are unwilling to accept long-term solutions that might hurt them today but gives them a lot more benefit tomorrow. That makes politicians much more concerned with the situation during their term, because to be elected they need to appear good today, that is what the voters want out of short-sighted self-interest. As we Germans say (roughly translated) "After us the noachian flood", i.e. as long as it's good for me today, the world can drown tomorrow. If people wanted to indeed vote for their self interest, they'd need to look beyond the short-term solutions and accept that the situation might not improve or might get worse for a while until the long-term solution takes effect, but that isn't something many people are capable of. They just want immediate improvements and the politicians give them that just to get elected - at significant cost that is left to the successors.
There is no actual solution to that problem outside of better education, and it's something that is affecting all democracies. It doesn't change that Democracy, for all it's flaws and problems, is still the best of all the bad political systems we have.
|
On July 09 2016 20:12 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 20:05 RvB wrote:On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already. With regards to xenophobic attacks in the UK: this is obviously very sad, but it is also worth drawing attention to the response of communities to them. A Romanian shop was set on fire in Norwich, for example, but by the next day a community effort had raised many times the worth of the damages for the owners of the shop. The kind of people responsible for these attacks are the same people who would attack English people on any other day of the week. If you think India will negotiate a real FTA you're fooling yourself. India is insanely protectionist and their Free trade agreements are hardly worthy of the name. Not all free trade agreements result in fully free trade... they are all at least partially protectionist. Nothing wrong with it, ESPECIALLY for a developing nation. Sometimes it can be about freer trade.
Except that in the case of India it doesn't produce freer trade at all. That was my point. Something like the TPP does do so with developing markets and the UK could join it (everyone is free to join iirc).
|
On July 09 2016 08:07 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 17:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 08 2016 07:15 BurningSera wrote:
Career development, buying property, raising a family etc, brexit put instability/high risk in everyone from 20-40 years old.
And a better deal? I really doubt US/China (and maybe India) too will not take the advantage of the fact that UK has no EU at the back now ie maybe UK needs them more so than ever, and why would they cut a 'better deal' for UK. Either way I don't see how UK will pay less than brexit to everything.
This all goes back to my point again: 'This is 2016, not 1970'. UK is not the sun-never-set nation anymore. If the UK and global economies were in good shape (low debt) then brexit would change nothing. Sadly the UK and the rest of the west has been in a giant credit/debt bubble that has been building for the past 40 years.This is why house prices have become so insane, especially around London. The years ahead will be incredibly tough.But they have to happen, to allow house prices to return to sane levels, for the budget deficit, current account deficit and trade deficit to return to the levels they were prior to the early 80s. People need to stop blaming Brexit for a recession caused by underlying economic issues that have been worsening for the past four decades.You talk about wanting stability when purchasing property please just look at this chart.Then realise there is NO WAY to bring house prices back to SANE LEVELS without a severe recession/depression.
LONDON FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PRICE - SOURCE : NATIONWIDE1995 Q4 : £61,522
2015 Q4 : £401,212![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cmx3pMxWYAA0XDS.jpg) there is NO WAY to bring house prices back to SANE LEVELS without a severe recession/depression... IN LONDON. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country, people in their 20s on below the average wage can afford to buy a house, such as around Birmingham. 7 bedroom recently built house for under £250k? http://www.zoopla.co.uk/new-homes/details/40467284?search_identifier=c78114c414369a113cfdc74cd068fbc3#jDEzOcqzeMFP6KbY.97You don't solve a problem like London with a recession, you solve it by either relaxing planning rules, building upwards, or moving jobs elsewhere. Pretty much every major city in the WORLD has crazy/rising house prices. London isn't a special snowflake in that regard.
You might have a point, if UK growth over the past 20 years hadn't been caused by a housing (debt) bubble especially in London and a financial sector in London that already had to be bailed out to the tune of 850 billion pounds back in 2008 and will likely need another bailout at some stage in the future.If they're going to move the financial sector anywhere it would be continental, not to Birmingham or Manchester.The financial sector sucks wealth from the rest of the country and funnels it into London.
|
A fair article from the guardian on the benefits of leaving the EU for UK manufacturing.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2016/jun/14/brexit-uk-manufacturing-global-market-eu-referendum
There is a reason why our internationally competitive manufacturing companies such as JCB and Dyson support Brexit. To survive and compete the UK has to expose itself to international competition and needs to focus on selling into the fast growing markets of the future.
The alternative of remaining protected behind the tariff wall and regulations of the EU makes companies flabby and less competitive in global markets. Yes, there are many big firms who want to remain in the EU. Not only do those big firms have the ability to lobby Brussels but they all too often focus on the short term and their next quarter’s results.
Leaving the EU will allow a sensible energy policy, a key input cost for firms. Likewise, many EU regulations are seen as a big problem by many small- and medium-sized firms. Brexit also allows the flexibility to reverse poor regulations, unlike the EU, where once in place they are impossible to remove. Naturally, many regulations will stay and, sensibly, workers rights are enshrined in UK law.
In the future we can craft policy to suit domestic needs, not least the possibility of an industrial policy if we wanted it.
We could directly help sectors. The US, never accused of not being free market, directly targets help to strategic sectors, like autos. So too could we if we wished. EU state aid rules prevent the ability to selectively help areas or sectors. Add in the need to abide by EU regional development criteria, and our hands are tied on regional policy too
The country needs to innovate, invest and spend on infrastructure. The latter has been a failure of policy, nothing to do with the EU. Yet if we were to leave we have greater flexibility on infrastructure and could decide to award more contracts to UK firms, if we so chose.
But what about trade? Within the EU it is not always appreciated how poor the EU is at conducting trade deals, and when they do the UK’s demands are just one of 28 countries. It is perhaps just as well that a trade deal is not necessary to trade. This is often overlooked. Thirty-six non-EU countries have seen faster export growth than us into the single market. This highlights once again that you do not need to be in the single market to sell into it. And as the strength of our auto sector shows, many of the big future opportunities are global.
|
On July 09 2016 09:04 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30.
Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people
|
On July 09 2016 21:08 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 20:59 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already. Diplomatic statements aside, India, China & US are in a not much different position than Norway when it comes to something concrete, because they can't even know what the UK can bargain and by what rules until your situation is clear. The terms of trade deals with 3rd parties are significantly influenced by whether you stay in the EEA, or opt for a Switzerland type deal, or ditch the EEA completely. Anything other than preliminary talks will have to wait until Brexit is finished and the UK's decision regarding the EEA happens. You will not sign new trade deals until leaving the EU is complete, even your minister of trade & investment said as much, and once that happens there's the problem of capacity, no one can effectively negociate even 4-5 trade deals at the same time, let alone 50+. Will probably have to hire trade negotiators from abroad to handle the work load. Oh sweet irony.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/new-zealand-offers-uk-its-top-trade-negotiators-for-post-brexit/
We don't need to negotiate 50+ trade deals. The majority of the EU's existing trade deals are with very minor markets (4 of them are British territories). It wouldn't be surprising if others in that group quickly agree to continue trading with the UK on the same/similar terms as they do with the EU. For South Korea, which I think is probably the most significant economy they have a deal with, the UK is an important market. Following that, I expect deals with the US, China, India, Singapore, AUS/NZ and Canada to be prioritised. I think it is unthinkable that we would forfeit the right to make trade deals in Brexit negotiations, even if May becomes PM, and I think it is likely that at least one or two deals will be ready to sign by the time we officially leave.
|
On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side. Here's another one of those 'no less racist than holding a sign at a protest' acts
|
U.K. Labour Party member Angela Eagle said she’s planning to make a leadership bid on Monday, as the tussle to oust its leader Jeremy Corbyn heats up.
Eagle said she will explain her “vision for the country and the difference a strong Labour Party can make,” the Press Association reported earlier on Saturday. It comes as Labour Party deputy leader Tom Watson said there’s no realistic prospect of an agreement between the party’s union backers and Corbyn, the BBC reported separately on its website.
Corbyn is resisting calls to step down after losing vote of confidence among his lawmakers by 172 votes to 40 and seeing dozens of senior Labour lawmakers exit his team. The standoff has left the party in turmoil at a time of crisis in British politics following last month’s unexpected Brexit vote, which spurred the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron and sent the pound to a 31-year low against the dollar.
Corbyn has “still got a clear lead, but a much smaller one than he had before" at the peak of his popularity, said Matt Singh, a political analyst at non-partisan blog NumberCruncherPolitics. "There has been a big influx of new members, about 130,000 since the referendum. It’s really going to depend on what the make-up of this group is.”
www.bloomberg.com
|
On July 10 2016 01:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side. Here's another one of those 'no less racist than holding a sign at a protest' acts
I already referenced this and told you that the community have raised money worth far more than the damages for the owner of the shop...
|
On July 10 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2016 01:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side. Here's another one of those 'no less racist than holding a sign at a protest' acts I already referenced this and told you that the community have raised money worth far more than the damages for the owner of the shop...
Sorry, only just saw this and hadn't made the connection. I'm aware that this is a tiny minority not representative of general population, but I don't agree that these daily attacks are on the same level of stupidity/dangerousness as the signs Nettle posted. And I somehow doubt it's Poles/Romanians/Bulgarians that are making signs against 'white people'.
|
On July 10 2016 02:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:On July 10 2016 01:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side. Here's another one of those 'no less racist than holding a sign at a protest' acts I already referenced this and told you that the community have raised money worth far more than the damages for the owner of the shop... Sorry, only just saw this and hadn't made the connection. I'm aware that this is a tiny minority not representative of general population, but I don't agree that these daily attacks are on the same level of stupidity/dangerousness as the signs Nettle posted. And I somehow doubt it's Poles/Romanians/Bulgarians that are making signs against 'white people'.
Not sure about arson specifically (that's something that would be more likely to be done in the kinds of neigborhoods immigrants will settle in) but there is plenty of abuse from the other side. Here, here, and here for example.
I don't see any point in trying to argue, "their shitty people are worse than our shitty people" or any variation on that tune. Neither side seems to be more systematically shitty than the other, these acts are not openly or even silently and implicitly supported by the majority of the voters on either side - from what I've seen these people are the outliers rather than just the extremes. Immigrants are an issue, age demographics on voting are an issue, and some people are overly passionate about the issues and spawn violence. You'd have to have more than that to blame either side, and in this case I'm not seeing any overtly violent movement from either side.
|
On July 10 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2016 02:16 Dan HH wrote:On July 10 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:On July 10 2016 01:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side. Here's another one of those 'no less racist than holding a sign at a protest' acts I already referenced this and told you that the community have raised money worth far more than the damages for the owner of the shop... Sorry, only just saw this and hadn't made the connection. I'm aware that this is a tiny minority not representative of general population, but I don't agree that these daily attacks are on the same level of stupidity/dangerousness as the signs Nettle posted. And I somehow doubt it's Poles/Romanians/Bulgarians that are making signs against 'white people'. Not sure about arson specifically (that's something that would be more likely to be done in the kinds of neigborhoods immigrants will settle in) but there is plenty of abuse from the other side. Here, here, and here for example. I don't see any point in trying to argue, "their shitty people are worse than our shitty people" or any variation on that tune. Neither side seems to be more systematically shitty than the other, these acts are not openly or even silently and implicitly supported by the majority of the voters on either side - from what I've seen these people are the outliers rather than just the extremes. Immigrants are an issue, age demographics on voting are an issue, and some people are overly passionate about the issues and spawn violence. You'd have to have more than that to blame either side, and in this case I'm not seeing any overtly violent movement from either side.
I don't think you guys are appreciating the frequency and seriousness of these violent attacks on immigrants in recent weeks if you're equating them to mean tweets and shrugging it off as 'each side has shitty people'. You seem to be under the impressiont that this is not noteworthy on its own and only matters if it reflects bad on a 'side'.
|
It is noteworthy on its own, but the fact that you're trying to, if implicitly, ascribe it to a side is what makes it wrong. It'd be better to just consider the attacks in and of themselves without the "Blame Leave" side of it.
|
On July 09 2016 17:40 RoomOfMush wrote:
Thats why it says "ideal people" and "theory". Duh.
Yes, but those "people" dont even need a government, so the form of government that works best for governing them is a moot point. Or, even if they needed government we could select one of these far-sighted benevolent persons at random and make them dictator.
Its like the communism "in a perfect world" thing. Attenuated democracy through republicanism, just like capitalism, are the best systems for dealing with the faults of humans. The perfect humans that "theoretically" make other systems work make every system work perfectly as well, thus making it an invalid line of thought.
|
On July 10 2016 04:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 17:40 RoomOfMush wrote:
Thats why it says "ideal people" and "theory". Duh. Yes, but those "people" dont even need a government, so the form of government that works best for governing them is a moot point. Or, even if they needed government we could select one of these far-sighted benevolent persons at random and make them dictator. Its like the communism "in a perfect world" thing. Attenuated democracy through republicanism, just like capitalism, are the best systems for dealing with the faults of humans. The perfect humans that "theoretically" make other systems work make every system work perfectly as well, thus making it an invalid line of thought.
Yes, that is exactly what I wrote. Good job.
|
On July 10 2016 03:34 LegalLord wrote:
It is noteworthy on its own, but the fact that you're trying to, if implicitly, ascribe it to a side is what makes it wrong. It'd be better to just consider the attacks in and of themselves without the "Blame Leave" side of it.
There has literally been years of blaming immigrants for the problems the country faces through both dog-whistle statements and much more blatant ones. Most of the politicians and columnists who propagated this anti-immigrant rhetoric came out in support of the Leave side. Whether the issue for voters was immigrants or not, voting for Leave was a conscious decision to tick the same box as xenophobes and racists regardless of their own views. When Leave won, these xenophobes and racists clearly became emboldened as they believed they had the voice of the silent majority on their side, leading to the current attacks. The attacks and the result of the referendum are pretty clearly connected, whether people who voted Leave like it or not - considering the attacks in and of themselves is to consider that many likely wouldn't have occurred had Leave not won.
|
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would use a Remain victory as motivation for revenge.
But trying to insinuate, "if you're for Brexit you stand with the racists and xenophobes and godless communists" is goddamn disingenuous. It is very much so possible to disagree with the outcome of a referendum without trying to convince yourself that the other side is morally inferior or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
