|
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 October 14 2016 20:21 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 20:07 showstealer1829 wrote:On October 13 2016 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Look like Nicola Sturgeon's going to go for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
We've been down this road before. She can't. Any referendum isn't binding without Westminster approval and like hell they're going to grant it. She can. You can go for a referendum without it being binding. And if there's an overwhelming turnout and a large majority for independence, Westminster will probably have to yield. But that's not gonna happen.
My guess is that she doesn't actually want another referendum. She wants to keep talking about it but if it happens then it is over for her, just like Nigel Farage has nothing to talk about after the EU referendum.
If Scotland has a second referendum and votes to stay again then Sturgeon's career takes a massive hit, both because she has been pushing for something that has been voted down twice and for wasting the money in having a second referendum.
If there is a second referendum and becoming independent wins then Sturgeon would be expected to deliver on all the promises made during the referendum campaign. There's a good reason why none of the prominent Brexiteers wanted to become PM. Maybe her best outcome would be a win for independence but non-binding and then blocked by Westminster so she could continue fighting against Westminster.
But my guess is that a second referendum would likely be bad for her. She wants to push for it without it actually happening.
In politics, it is much easier to be on the outside criticising than it is to be in power. (So long as your own party isn't having a civil war anyway.)
|
On October 14 2016 20:21 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 20:07 showstealer1829 wrote:On October 13 2016 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Look like Nicola Sturgeon's going to go for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
We've been down this road before. She can't. Any referendum isn't binding without Westminster approval and like hell they're going to grant it. She can. You can go for a referendum without it being binding. And if there's an overwhelming turnout and a large majority for independence, Westminster will probably have to yield. But that's not gonna happen.
Does the name "Catalonia" mean anything to you?
|
On October 14 2016 20:41 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 20:21 Laurens wrote:On October 14 2016 20:07 showstealer1829 wrote:On October 13 2016 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Look like Nicola Sturgeon's going to go for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
We've been down this road before. She can't. Any referendum isn't binding without Westminster approval and like hell they're going to grant it. She can. You can go for a referendum without it being binding. And if there's an overwhelming turnout and a large majority for independence, Westminster will probably have to yield. But that's not gonna happen. Does the name "Catalonia" mean anything to you?
Yeah, they also had a non-binding referendum. Doesn't this back my point that Sturridge can do a referendum?  I'm not sure why you bring it up.
|
On October 14 2016 20:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 20:30 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 20:05 Velr wrote:On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised. Let me get this straight. You want the ideal deal for Britain for 5 years until negotiations bring about a deal Britain wants even more? I don't see that Happening... What? I'm talking about continuing single market membership (including free movement and payments) for the duration of trade negotiations so that there is no sudden shock. Britain being in the single market benefits the EU, as does avoiding a shock which could seriously undermine already teetering European banks. Are you aware that there is a 2 year wait period after article 50 is invoked for this exact purpose?
Yeah, but it's unrealistic to think that 2 years will be sufficient to negotiate the trade deal. We'll be lucky to have a broad framework in place for Brexit after 2 years.
|
Where have you read this 5 year thing? It makes no sense. The UK does not have a separate deal with EU and EEA to be able to cut the former and keep the latter, making such a 5 year deal to stay in the EEA while having left the EU would absorb a massive amount of time and civil servants in itself.
|
That 5year was a thing back in July? but it has not been mentioned again since, because it was more like a suggestion etc (I remember that because GBP raised for awhile after); EU was not entirely sure how to deal with it, this whole thing is as new as to them and as to UK. But I wouldn't count on that 5year thing anymore, because now is 'hard exit or not'.
And just about few hours ago Tusk's comment was brushed off so apparently hard brexit we go. I dumped some investments last night and I will soon selling most GBP I hold. The winter is indeed coming.
|
On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult.
|
On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult.
I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old.
RE Scotland:
User was temp banned for this post.
|
More biggotted comments by bardtown.. nice link to a biased poll.
If your English you have no right to comment on a Scottish referendum. Enjoy your little England.
|
On October 16 2016 01:54 MyTHicaL wrote:
More biggotted comments by bardtown.. nice link to a biased poll.
If your English you have no right to comment on a Scottish referendum. Enjoy your little England.
I'm Scottish and I have to say that I don't believe for a moment that there'll be another referendum on independence.
|
On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992
You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right?
Nevermind, forget it.
I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago.
|
On October 16 2016 02:00 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 01:54 MyTHicaL wrote:
More biggotted comments by bardtown.. nice link to a biased poll.
If your English you have no right to comment on a Scottish referendum. Enjoy your little England. I'm Scottish and I have to say that I don't believe for a moment that there'll be another referendum on independence.
So am I; it really depends on what form of treaty the UK gets, if they remain within the single market nothing changes and I wouldn't see the need for one. Also, if Westminster pretends they won't allow it, it will push more people to demand one.. with 56/59 seats SNP I don't understand how you can rule one out. Especially with the recent talks in Glasgow...
But maybe I'm oddly just an optimist for once xD.
|
On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. Actually there aren't very many Syrian refugees in UK. Less than 5 000 I beleive. I live in London and haven't met a single one. Hardly the hordes he and others describes. UK isn't part of the Schengen zone. The "illiterate thugs" he denounces are nationals from EU countries who appear to be better educated than he is and judging by how he mangles the English language, are certainly more eloquent in his own native toungue than he is.
|
On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago.
Irrelevant statement, followed by some weird conjecture about what I 'suppose Britain should be doing'.
I was not talking about Syrians, I was talking about Europeans. Yes, I know that there are many well educated and wealthy Syrians moving to Europe and many destitute, injured and disabled Syrians left to die because you (Germany) are so obsessed with virtue signalling, since the events of 75 years ago, that you would rather waste all your funds on people who don't need it than divert them to people who do but are less visible. Despite 'many' Syrians (proportionally a small number) being educated, the majority are essentially unemployable in Germany or any developed economy, and almost none are employable without subsidies that would be far more efficient in almost any other country in the world.
As for what I suppose Britain should be doing - what are you even referring to? I am very much in favour of Britain's humanitarian interventions and high aid budget.
On October 16 2016 02:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. judging by how he mangles the English language, are certainly more eloquent in his own native toungue than he is.
Examples, please. Note the misspelling of 'tongue' and the redundant 'own'.
|
United States42864 Posts
On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago.
For the record Churchill was one of the more outspoken advocates of a United States of Europe. He desired it to be a Federal state in which the individual sovereignty of the constituent countries was preserved but one that worked together militarily and economically as a safeguard against Russian imperialism and against further internal conflict. He saw the world being divided into five great bodies, the USA, the USE, the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and China which worked collectively to avoid future wars. Britain would have a dual role existing both within the USE and within the Commonwealth which would include Canada, Australia, much of Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
|
On October 16 2016 02:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. Irrelevant statement, followed by some weird conjecture about what I 'suppose Britain should be doing'. I was not talking about Syrians, I was talking about Europeans. Yes, I know that there are many well educated and wealthy Syrians moving to Europe and many destitute, injured and disabled Syrians left to die because you (Germany) are so obsessed with virtue signalling, since the events of 75 years ago, that you would rather waste all your funds on people who don't need it than divert them to people who do but are less visible. Despite 'many' Syrians (proportionally a small number) being educated, the majority are essentially unemployable in Germany or any developed economy, and almost none are employable without subsidies that would be far more efficient in almost any other country in the world. As for what I suppose Britain should be doing - what are you even referring to? I am very much in favour of Britain's humanitarian interventions and high aid budget. Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2016 16:32 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. Wow, just wow. I think I'll just quote this every time you ask to be spoken to like an adult. I'd rather you didn't acknowledge me at all. You have the reading comprehension of a six year old. RE Scotland: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/786898407860436992 You know that many of the syrian refugees arriving are well educated, right? Nevermind, forget it. I'm so glad that britain diddn't do, what you suppose it should be doing now, 75 years ago. judging by how he mangles the English language, are certainly more eloquent in his own native toungue than he is. Examples, please. Note the misspelling of 'tongue' and the redundant 'own'.
Fair enough. I was mistaken with regards to your actual target, I apologise.
Concerning your "illiterate thugs" statement. Are you sure that you are talking about the right demographic?
Brexit: Hate crimes up fivefold in week after UK vote to leave EU
Hate crimes soared by 41% after Brexit vote, official figures reveal
Anyway, I will get back when I have more time. Cheerios and keep it civil
|
On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. You're missing the point, maybe because I'm using complex in a technical sense. A complex system arises from many local interactions of many low level parts. I could go into real depth about this but I won't because I doubt anyone is interested, but the general principle is that organic, low-level self organisation results in the most efficient configuration for the emergent entity. In other words, democracy works because each individual is best placed to make an assessment of their local situation, not because they are capable of understanding the entire system. It is this nation-wide collection of localised perspectives that provides the best measure of the system as a whole, because the system is actually nothing more than the collective of these localised parts. Of course the downside is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to each local scenario, but when the decision is necessarily binary, there's no better way to make the judgement. I would be quite happy to have freedom of movement between London and the EU if it was an option, but the one-size-fits-all problem works both ways. Most are unhappy with the EU, and when localised adaptation is not an option we have to go with the majority. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised.
You're talking about spontaneous order of which the market (Smith's invisible hand) is an example. A referendum isn't like that at all. Spontaneous order works because everyone has influence in the ultimate outcome including minorities. With political decisions in a referendum or democracy the outcome is decided by a simple majority with the minority being coerced to follow the line. This is actually one of the arguments made by liberals of why as much as possible should be kept out of the political sphere.
You're the one missing the point. Brexit isn't a simple binary choice. There are many forms or Brexit (soft, hard and everything in between) or staying in the EU (as evidenced by all the exemptions Britain already gets). It also neglects the fact that a lot of future decisions and lawmaking are dependent on whether you stay in the EU or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
|
Well, look what surfaced today courtesy of the Sunday Times, an unpublished article that Boris wrote for the Telegraph in February of this year, here it is in all its splendor:
OK OK, I admit it. If you gave him a truth drug, or hypnotised him, I don’t think even the prime minister would really deny it.
This European Union deal is not perhaps everything that we would have liked. It is not what we Eurosceptics were hoping, not when the process kicked off. We were hoping he was going to get really deep down and dirty, in the way that the Bloomberg speech seemed to indicate. He was going to probe the belly of the beast and bring back British sovereignty, like Hercules bringing Eurydice (sic) back from the underworld. I had the impression that this was going to be the beginning of a wholesale repatriation of powers — over fisheries, farming, the social chapter, border controls, you name it: all those political hostages joyfully returning home like the end of Raid on Entebbe.
It was going to be a moment for the ringing of church bells and bonfires on beacons, and union flags flying from every steeple, and peasants blind drunk on non-EU approved scrumpy and beating the hedgerows with staves while singing patriotic songs about Dave the hero.
I don’t think we can pretend that this is how things have turned out. This is not a fundamental reform of Britain’s position in the EU, and no-one could credibly claim it is.
It is not pointless; it is not wholly insignificant; it is by no means a waste of time. But it will not stop the great machine of EU integration, and it will not stop the production of ever more EU laws — at least some of which will have deleterious effects on the economy of this country and the rest of Europe.
Never mind the Tusk deal; look at the elephant in the room: the great beast still trampling happily on British parliamentary sovereignty, and British democracy. So there are likely to be a significant number of people — perhaps including you — who will feel that in all honour we can now only do one thing.
We said we wanted a reformed EU. We said that if we failed to get reform, then Britain could have a great future outside. We have not got a reformed EU — so: nothing for it, then — ho for the open seas! Viva Brexit! That would seem to be the logic, and yet I wonder if it is wholly correct.
Shut your eyes. Hold your breath. Think of Britain. Think of the rest of the EU. Think of the future. Think of the desire of your children and your grandchildren to live and work in other European countries; to sell things there, to make friends and perhaps to find partners there.
Ask yourself: despite all the defects and disappointments of this exercise — do you really, truly, definitely want Britain to pull out of the EU ? Now? This is a big thing to do, and there is certainly a strong political-philosophical imperative leading us to the door.
We are being outvoted ever more frequently. The ratchet of integration clicks remorselessly forward. More and more questions are now justiciable by the European Court of Justice, including that extraordinary document, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This bestows on every one of our 500m EU citizens a legally enforceable right to do all sorts of things across all 28 states: to start a business, to choose any occupation they like, to found any type of religious school, to enjoy “academic freedom”. I shudder to think what is going to happen when UK citizens start vindicating these new “rights” in Luxembourg.
There is going to be more and more of this stuff ; and I can see why people might just think, to hell with it. I want out. I want to take back control of our democracy and our country.
If you feel that, I perfectly understand — because half the time I have been feeling that myself. And then the other half of the time, I have been thinking: hmmm. I like the sound of freedom; I like the sound of restoring democracy. But what are the downsides — and here we must be honest.
There are some big questions that the “out” side need to answer. Almost everyone expects there to be some sort of economic shock as a result of a Brexit. How big would it be? I am sure that the doomsters are exaggerating the fallout — but are they completely wrong? And how can we know?
And then there is the worry about Scotland, and the possibility that an English-only “leave” vote could lead to the break-up of the union. There is the Putin factor: we don’t want to do anything to encourage more shirtless swaggering from the Russian leader, not in the Middle East, not anywhere.
And then there is the whole geostrategic anxiety. Britain is a great nation, a global force for good. It is surely a boon for the world and for Europe that she should be intimately engaged in the EU. This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms: the membership fee seems rather small for all that access.
Why are we so determined to turn our back on it? Shouldn’t our policy be like our policy on cake — pro having it and pro eating it? Pro Europe and pro the rest of the world?
If sovereignty is the problem — and it certainly is — then maybe it is worth looking again at the prime minister’s deal, because there is a case for saying it is not quite as contemptible as all that. He is the first prime minister to get us out of ever closer union, which is potentially very important with the European Court of Justice and how it interprets EU law. He has some good stuff on competition, and repealing legislation, and on protecting Britain from further integration of the euro group.
Now if this were baked into a real EU treaty, it would be very powerful. Taken together with the sovereignty clauses — which are not wholly platitudinous — you can see the outlines of a new role for Britain: friendly, involved, but not part of the federalist project.
Yes, folks, the deal’s a bit of a dud, but it contains the germ of something really good. I am going to muffle my disappointment and back the prime minister.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cripes-i-jolly-nearly-backed-dave-on-europe-wbcqd6b6c
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37670091
|
So what exactly is this going to mean? Its not like its still relevant, is it? Or do you think Boris Johnson will see some kind of political backlash for this?
|
On October 16 2016 23:21 RoomOfMush wrote:
So what exactly is this going to mean? Its not like its still relevant, is it? Or do you think Boris Johnson will see some kind of political backlash for this?
Other than a sharp increase in the amount of quips/satire thrown his way in the coming 1-2 weeks, no this won't have any consequences of note. His chances of ever becoming PM died with the referendum anyway, and his position as Foreign Secretary is safe for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
