|
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 March 18 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 06:18 bardtown wrote:
Give it time and keep an open mind. As I see it Brexit was the greatest vindication of the democratic process we have seen in recent times. The people voted against the vested interests of the entire establishment to put their country back on the course they want it on. More fundamentally, even, they voted to have the power to decide that course for themselves. When all the economists and political parties were trying to stop the people doing something and they did it anyway, it seems clear to me that there was a fundamental incoherence in our political system that could only be addressed through a referendum.
At the start of the campaign the one thing that made me reluctant to leave was the Ukraine situation. The EU may still have a positive role to play for such countries, and I hope we can support their progress from outside; but the UK is not a fledgling democracy that needs supranational controls to keep it on track. On the contrary, British democracy was made lethargic and unresponsive by the EU. Have a little faith in the decision that people made in the face of all manner of threat. Where the winning side repeatedly pulled out lies, at the thinnest of margins and a not insignificant number of 'winners' regretting their choice. Yes, a clear vindication of the democratic process...
Stop peddling this myth that I have refuted multiple times. Also, cite lies. And they better be actual lies and not just political spin. Better than the lies about no EU army, recession and the end of western civilisation.
The Remain campaign was a joke.
|
On March 18 2017 06:26 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2017 06:18 bardtown wrote:
Give it time and keep an open mind. As I see it Brexit was the greatest vindication of the democratic process we have seen in recent times. The people voted against the vested interests of the entire establishment to put their country back on the course they want it on. More fundamentally, even, they voted to have the power to decide that course for themselves. When all the economists and political parties were trying to stop the people doing something and they did it anyway, it seems clear to me that there was a fundamental incoherence in our political system that could only be addressed through a referendum.
At the start of the campaign the one thing that made me reluctant to leave was the Ukraine situation. The EU may still have a positive role to play for such countries, and I hope we can support their progress from outside; but the UK is not a fledgling democracy that needs supranational controls to keep it on track. On the contrary, British democracy was made lethargic and unresponsive by the EU. Have a little faith in the decision that people made in the face of all manner of threat. Where the winning side repeatedly pulled out lies, at the thinnest of margins and a not insignificant number of 'winners' regretting their choice. Yes, a clear vindication of the democratic process... Stop peddling this myth that I have refuted multiple times. Also, cite lies. And they better be actual lies and not just political spin. Better than the lies about no EU army, recession and the end of western civilisation. The Remain campaign was a joke.
The 350 million pounds a week that will not totally go to the NHS?
|
The figure was discussed innumerable times. Everybody understood that the NHS was an example of where the money could go to. Nobody said they would spend £350m extra a week on the NHS, and nobody was in a position to say that because the government was on the other side. It's actually a good example of a lie from the Remain side because they said that the Leave side said this so many times that people like you actually believe that the Leave side said it.
Anyway, forget it. Don't give it a chance, just keep grasping at excuses. So tired of the constant negativity.
|
On March 18 2017 07:00 bardtown wrote:
The figure was discussed innumerable times. Everybody understood that the NHS was an example of where the money could go to. Nobody said they would spend £350m extra a week on the NHS, and nobody was in a position to say that because the government was on the other side. It's actually a good example of a lie from the Remain side because they said that the Leave side said this so many times that people like you actually believe that the Leave side said it.
Anyway, forget it. Don't give it a chance, just keep grasping at excuses. So tired of the constant negativity.
It doesn't even matter where it goes because the 350 does not exist as extra money. It counted the money going out to the EU but utterly ignored the money coming back in.
|
On March 18 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 07:00 bardtown wrote:
The figure was discussed innumerable times. Everybody understood that the NHS was an example of where the money could go to. Nobody said they would spend £350m extra a week on the NHS, and nobody was in a position to say that because the government was on the other side. It's actually a good example of a lie from the Remain side because they said that the Leave side said this so many times that people like you actually believe that the Leave side said it.
Anyway, forget it. Don't give it a chance, just keep grasping at excuses. So tired of the constant negativity. It doesn't even matter where it goes because the 350 does not exist as extra money. It counted the money going out to the EU but utterly ignored the money coming back in.
Farage only admitted after the referendum. Yay for "winners", so much moral. 
|
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case.
|
On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case.
your right, the ~38k a week it actually is will totally help the UK and counteract the losses from no longer being a part of the biggest trade union.
You asked for examples, I gave you one, they lied.
And no, your example is not the correct way, if I pay you 200 in rent every month but you payed my electricity bill of 100, leaving you to live on my own will not give me an extra 200 to spend each month.
|
£350m a week was the treasury figure. They spun it. People are not stupid - they know that political campaigns involve spin.
You didn't give me a lie. Try again or gtfo.
|
On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. No bardtown. That's not how reality works. In reality, this would be called paying £5. Further evidence of Bardtown's dissociation from reality.
|
On March 18 2017 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case. your right, the ~38k a week it actually is will totally help the UK and counteract the losses from no longer being a part of the biggest trade union. You asked for examples, I gave you one, they lied. And no, your example is not the correct way, if I pay you 200 in rent every month but you payed my electricity bill of 100, leaving you to live on my own will not give me an extra 200 to spend each month.
Just noticed this '~38k a week'. You're now infinitely more guilty than them for making a figure up that is completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Using the gross figure can be seen as spin, but making a figure up is actually lying. Good work.
|
On March 18 2017 07:36 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case. your right, the ~38k a week it actually is will totally help the UK and counteract the losses from no longer being a part of the biggest trade union. You asked for examples, I gave you one, they lied. And no, your example is not the correct way, if I pay you 200 in rent every month but you payed my electricity bill of 100, leaving you to live on my own will not give me an extra 200 to spend each month. Just noticed this '~38k a week'. You're now infinitely more guilty than them for making a figure up that is completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Using the gross figure can be seen as spin, but making a figure up is actually lying. Good work.
Edit: nvm, math is hard.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 18 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 07:36 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2017 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case. your right, the ~38k a week it actually is will totally help the UK and counteract the losses from no longer being a part of the biggest trade union. You asked for examples, I gave you one, they lied. And no, your example is not the correct way, if I pay you 200 in rent every month but you payed my electricity bill of 100, leaving you to live on my own will not give me an extra 200 to spend each month. Just noticed this '~38k a week'. You're now infinitely more guilty than them for making a figure up that is completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Using the gross figure can be seen as spin, but making a figure up is actually lying. Good work. Sorry, a silly calculation mistake, its 58k a week (used 2 instead of 3 mil). Show nested quote +The UK has averaged around €12 billion in EU funding each year between 2011-15 but over that same period made an average net contribution of €15 billion. http://www.businessinsider.de/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12
Your maths still seems off. 3 bil euros = 2.5ish bil pounds divided by 52 weeks = 48 million/week
|
On March 18 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2017 07:36 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2017 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2017 07:17 bardtown wrote:
It is completely normal to use the gross figure in that scenario. If I give you £10 and you buy me a meal for £5, it doesn't change the fact that I gave you £10. Also, tactically it was the right thing to do because people like you kept bringing it up and the Leave team got to say 'Okay, use the net figure. £200m a week.' It was still a staggering amount of money, meaning that every time the Remain campaign brought it up they were hammering home just how much money goes to the EU and undermining their own case. your right, the ~38k a week it actually is will totally help the UK and counteract the losses from no longer being a part of the biggest trade union. You asked for examples, I gave you one, they lied. And no, your example is not the correct way, if I pay you 200 in rent every month but you payed my electricity bill of 100, leaving you to live on my own will not give me an extra 200 to spend each month. Just noticed this '~38k a week'. You're now infinitely more guilty than them for making a figure up that is completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Using the gross figure can be seen as spin, but making a figure up is actually lying. Good work. Sorry, a silly calculation mistake, its 58k a week (used 2 instead of 3 mil). The UK has averaged around €12 billion in EU funding each year between 2011-15 but over that same period made an average net contribution of €15 billion. http://www.businessinsider.de/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12 Your maths still seems off. 3 bil euros = 2.5ish bil pounds divided by 52 weeks = 48 million/week
I really should stop trying to do math on the internet... cough.
Nvm
|
|
|
What in the actual fuck are you guys doing?
Using your own source:
![[image loading]](http://static5.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5867be926c9b191a008b4c8f-1035)
The blue crosses are net contributions. You can see that the UK is the 2nd largest contributor after Germany at around 10 billion euros net. That is roughly 190 million euros a week.
If you had taken any time to do research in the referendum these figures would not be news to you.
|
On March 18 2017 08:27 bardtown wrote:What in the actual fuck are you guys doing? Using your own source: The blue crosses are net contributions. You can see that the UK is the 2nd largest contributor after Germany at around 10 billion euros net. That is roughly 190 million euros a week. If you had taken any time to do research in the referendum these figures would not be news to you.
Giving in more money than you get out isn't a bad thing if the effect is that you have more prosperous, better developed neighbours to trade with. It also means there is less conflict and less war.
I pay 40% in taxes on my earnings above £43k. I don't drive and don't have any long term health issues so don't use the roads (I commute by rail) or use NHS services.
But I still benefit from having a stable transport network around me and not being surrounded by lots of sick people with communicable diseases.
Plus its nice being around happier, healthier people.
|
On March 18 2017 06:18 bardtown wrote:
Give it time and keep an open mind. As I see it Brexit was the greatest vindication of the democratic process we have seen in recent times. The people voted against the vested interests of the entire establishment to put their country back on the course they want it on. More fundamentally, even, they voted to have the power to decide that course for themselves. When all the economists and political parties were trying to stop the people doing something and they did it anyway, it seems clear to me that there was a fundamental incoherence in our political system that could only be addressed through a referendum.
At the start of the campaign the one thing that made me reluctant to leave was the Ukraine situation. The EU may still have a positive role to play for such countries, and I hope we can support their progress from outside; but the UK is not a fledgling democracy that needs supranational controls to keep it on track. On the contrary, British democracy was made lethargic and unresponsive by the EU. Have a little faith in the decision that people made in the face of all manner of threat.
Also, really, compare this to countries that refuse to give their people a vote and ask where you'd rather be. The refusal of establishment parties in Europe to even consider hearing the people's views on this subject just shows that they know the EU cannot stand up to real democratic pressure. I doubt there are many who would vote to leave, but the EU should be forced to justify its existence to the people. Maybe then it wouldn't be such a catastrophic mess.
How much of this fundamental incoherence still remains (pardon the pun) today in the UK political discourse? If, say, the pro-EU parties still refuse to countenance the idea that Leave had sound reasons for the voting decision, what does that mean for the future of the democratic process? The whole situation to a spectator from across the pond appears to be that the problem with that free votes is that the people choose wrong, and can't be trusted to act in their own best interest, which is a basic questioning of the value of democratic processes in general.
|
From my perspective the problem is that it wasn't clear what people voted for in the first place and it's still isn't clear what they voted for. So you can pretty much say anything about everything because no one is sure exactly what Brexit means yet.
And UK politicians doesn't seem very concerned about deciding on what Brexit means. And they seem even less inclined to ask the people what they want Brexit to be.
May needs to article 50 ASAP so the whole thing is put on a timer and then the British parliament, government and people needs to sit down and have a chat about what is most important to them.
I don't know how they should do this (different parties taking stances for what they want to negotiate about, new guiding referendum, polling?) but it needs to be done.
Because right now were in imaginary cake territory where some people say you can have the cake, eat it and get another cake free and the other side says the cake was just thrown into the mud and trampled on so there is no cake.
|
On March 18 2017 15:28 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 08:27 bardtown wrote:What in the actual fuck are you guys doing? Using your own source: The blue crosses are net contributions. You can see that the UK is the 2nd largest contributor after Germany at around 10 billion euros net. That is roughly 190 million euros a week. If you had taken any time to do research in the referendum these figures would not be news to you. Giving in more money than you get out isn't a bad thing if the effect is that you have more prosperous, better developed neighbours to trade with. It also means there is less conflict and less war. I pay 40% in taxes on my earnings above £43k. I don't drive and don't have any long term health issues so don't use the roads (I commute by rail) or use NHS services. But I still benefit from having a stable transport network around me and not being surrounded by lots of sick people with communicable diseases. Plus its nice being around happier, healthier people.
I am not opposed to giving money to facilitate development in countries that need it. I would say there is broad support for our international aid spending. I'm not convinced by the way the EU spends its money, though. For example, all the bureaucratic wastage or the euro institutions which cause poverty rather than alleviating it. It's very political.
On March 18 2017 16:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 06:18 bardtown wrote:
Give it time and keep an open mind. As I see it Brexit was the greatest vindication of the democratic process we have seen in recent times. The people voted against the vested interests of the entire establishment to put their country back on the course they want it on. More fundamentally, even, they voted to have the power to decide that course for themselves. When all the economists and political parties were trying to stop the people doing something and they did it anyway, it seems clear to me that there was a fundamental incoherence in our political system that could only be addressed through a referendum.
At the start of the campaign the one thing that made me reluctant to leave was the Ukraine situation. The EU may still have a positive role to play for such countries, and I hope we can support their progress from outside; but the UK is not a fledgling democracy that needs supranational controls to keep it on track. On the contrary, British democracy was made lethargic and unresponsive by the EU. Have a little faith in the decision that people made in the face of all manner of threat.
Also, really, compare this to countries that refuse to give their people a vote and ask where you'd rather be. The refusal of establishment parties in Europe to even consider hearing the people's views on this subject just shows that they know the EU cannot stand up to real democratic pressure. I doubt there are many who would vote to leave, but the EU should be forced to justify its existence to the people. Maybe then it wouldn't be such a catastrophic mess. How much of this fundamental incoherence still remains (pardon the pun) today in the UK political discourse? If, say, the pro-EU parties still refuse to countenance the idea that Leave had sound reasons for the voting decision, what does that mean for the future of the democratic process? The whole situation to a spectator from across the pond appears to be that the problem with that free votes is that the people choose wrong, and can't be trusted to act in their own best interest, which is a basic questioning of the value of democratic processes in general.
Yeah, it's still there. The government has been forced to align itself with the public on this issue, though, and it seems to me that they are reaping the rewards. Theresa May is far more popular than other party leaders and the Tories are polling over 40% which they couldn't have dreamed of until recently. Also, a lot of the negative rhetoric is dying out. Prior to the referendum Euroscepticism was portrayed as a kind of niche, radical view. That's not sustainable, now, so the conversation has become more level and less accusatory. A lot will depend on the outcome of the actual exit, I think. If everything goes well then the establishment will be forced to concede that the referendum was a success, whereas if it goes badly then I suspect they will do everything they can to stop more referendums being held.
On March 18 2017 16:56 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
From my perspective the problem is that it wasn't clear what people voted for in the first place and it's still isn't clear what they voted for. So you can pretty much say anything about everything because no one is sure exactly what Brexit means yet.
And UK politicians doesn't seem very concerned about deciding on what Brexit means. And they seem even less inclined to ask the people what they want Brexit to be.
May needs to article 50 ASAP so the whole thing is put on a timer and then the British parliament, government and people needs to sit down and have a chat about what is most important to them.
I don't know how they should do this (different parties taking stances for what they want to negotiate about, new guiding referendum, polling?) but it needs to be done.
Because right now were in imaginary cake territory where some people say you can have the cake, eat it and get another cake free and the other side says the cake was just thrown into the mud and trampled on so there is no cake.
Both sides go into the negotiations knowing what they want: the best they can get. The details can only emerge through the negotiation process itself.
|
On March 18 2017 16:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 06:18 bardtown wrote:
Give it time and keep an open mind. As I see it Brexit was the greatest vindication of the democratic process we have seen in recent times. The people voted against the vested interests of the entire establishment to put their country back on the course they want it on. More fundamentally, even, they voted to have the power to decide that course for themselves. When all the economists and political parties were trying to stop the people doing something and they did it anyway, it seems clear to me that there was a fundamental incoherence in our political system that could only be addressed through a referendum.
At the start of the campaign the one thing that made me reluctant to leave was the Ukraine situation. The EU may still have a positive role to play for such countries, and I hope we can support their progress from outside; but the UK is not a fledgling democracy that needs supranational controls to keep it on track. On the contrary, British democracy was made lethargic and unresponsive by the EU. Have a little faith in the decision that people made in the face of all manner of threat.
Also, really, compare this to countries that refuse to give their people a vote and ask where you'd rather be. The refusal of establishment parties in Europe to even consider hearing the people's views on this subject just shows that they know the EU cannot stand up to real democratic pressure. I doubt there are many who would vote to leave, but the EU should be forced to justify its existence to the people. Maybe then it wouldn't be such a catastrophic mess. How much of this fundamental incoherence still remains (pardon the pun) today in the UK political discourse? If, say, the pro-EU parties still refuse to countenance the idea that Leave had sound reasons for the voting decision, what does that mean for the future of the democratic process? The whole situation to a spectator from across the pond appears to be that the problem with that free votes is that the people choose wrong, and can't be trusted to act in their own best interest, which is a basic questioning of the value of democratic processes in general.
I wouldn't use bardtown as an information source except one of general incoherence. The is no fundamental incoherence, except one which naturally occurs when the populationa are split nearly 50/50. He only knows how to speak in soundbites. 52% against 48% is somehow "the people". He happily talks about "taking back control", but is angry when British democracy is at work confirming that yes, a bill must be subject to a discussion and a vote through parliament. He is against the existance of the House of Lords when it provides negatives to Brexit and for it's existance when it places forth positives. He is pleased David Davis's appearance in the commons yesterday even though what was made apparent was how our brexit secretary made no assessment of leaving the EU, in which one has to wonder what exactly has May's government been doing over the last 6 months! He has some strange narrative against "the establishment" whatever that may be. The referendum occured as a result of David Cameron trying to focus the effort of the conservative party away from obsessing over the EU and miscalculated. Its not a matter of people choosing "wrong" but that in effect the current government of May, who is unelected, are pushing through a bill without proper democratic oversight or indeed any form of real analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
