|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
That's all well and good, but whenever I jave talked to people I know who voted to leave the EU, their reasons are not about local governance or representative democracy, but rather either a totally misplaced understanding of economics or just plain misinformation. For the ones which aren't openly racist anyways. Whether what is said is the true reasons they have voted to leave the EU or not is hard to say, but the reasons they have openly said to me are just in the most case pure rubbish. I think it would be a good explanation for Brexit is just plain EU-scrapegoating for problems by certain actors of the media.
For example, a good friend of mine who I have known since school who is in favour of brexit. He openly mingles with people from different cultures, who votes says he voted to leave the EU because "sovereignty". He is also unemployed. I suspect his given reason is not the actual reason. His older sister about 35 years of age, also unemployed, is actually openly rascist against asians (by which I mean Indians and Pakistanis), frequently shouts at the TV over random stuff, when asked about why she voted to leave the EU just says "Brussels". Her, too, I suspect that her given reasons are not her actual reason. If pressed further just says the usual drivel about economics of which she has no clue about as she is as thick as two planks though and can barely string together two sentences, and some stuff about them Bulgarians and Romanians. She is fine with Polish and Hungarians though. Her husband, who used to be in the Army, actually works in a median salary job, frequently moan about money problems (though I don't know why as they have just sold their house and moved to the countryside and have no children) voted for brexit too. He can hold himself in an discussion, but his reasons are also economic rubbish and a sense that the EU has too much power and needs to be taken down a notch. There's only two guys at my work who I converse with that voted to leave the EU. One is just a plain old fashion bigot who hates everyone, including the Scottish, and his reason given was "because England is all full up" is probably the nicest one I can wrote here and the other a normally rather intelligent chap, used to export stationary and is under the delusion that becuase his English branded products were popular in Canada, USA and Australia, we can safely leave the EU and have favourable trade deals with commonwealth countries. He thinks EU trade is 15% of the UK though and seemed rather confused when I asked him about South Africa, but he is getting on a bit in the years.
So I guess if you are looking for why people voted for brexit, you take take my anecdotes for what they are.
|
re: kollin
ok; I see how those things exist as reasons in an explanatory sense; but not how they would represent "rational" reasons.
If the problem is national level undemocratic structures, then blaming the EU level undemocratic structures (whether such even exist is something i'm not so clear on) for them would be irrational. it'd simply be misplacing the blame.
and if, as you say, noone is trying to reform democracy within the uk; then a plan to do so with leaving the eu as a first step would not apply; and hence it wouldn't be a rational part of that overall plan.
I agree it's possible to stop the populists sometime; but I don't think that (populists being impossible to stop) was what the other person was arguing; at any rate, that's their argument so I'll let them clarify it or not.
One needn't put much stock in the economic value of the EU in order to conclude a brexit vote is irrational, if one finds very few or no reasons to leave. as even a tiny positive would outweigh no negatives. it of course would also matter which reasons people actually based their votes on, as opposed to which ones exist but aren't really affecting votes (I vaguely recall thinking of some rational reasons to brexit at the time, but never heard such arguments from proponents).
most people in general are not that rational of course, so a lot of irrational voting is to be expected; the main hope is that it tends to average out.
|
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised.
The whole idea that Brexit was some ridiculous aberration of an otherwise steadfast national common sense is one that I suspect is rooted in classism - we have had the equally stupid, vastly more damaging austerity and Iraq in the past 15 years - and the idea that the lying that produced it is somehow remarkable (given the mass deceit that accompanied the aforementioned two disasters) is insanity.
|
On July 03 2018 02:56 kollin wrote:
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised.
ok; but I didn't see anyone arguing that it was an unstoppable event. maybe I missed it.
While it's hard to universalise; it could be established that the reasons for leaving that were used by voters were irrational, and the reasons for staying were somewhat rational. one needn't answer the larger question of whether it was "right" in order to say whether good reasons were used in the primary arguments presented.
|
On July 03 2018 02:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 02:56 kollin wrote:
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised. ok; but I didn't see anyone arguing that it was an unstoppable event. maybe I missed it. While it's hard to universalise; it could be established that the reasons for leaving that were used by voters were irrational, and the reasons for staying were somewhat rational. one needn't answer the larger question of whether it was "right" in order to say whether good reasons were used in the primary arguments presented.
I was originally replying to the post that said once populists build up momentum, there is nothing that can be done to stop them (more or less a direct quote).
To clarify it's not that I think the vast majority of Brexit voters were motivated by rational process - I think that the grievances many of them felt were entirely avoidable, thus giving brexiteers no opportunity to transplant those grievances onto the EU.
|
On July 03 2018 03:04 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 02:59 zlefin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:56 kollin wrote:
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised. ok; but I didn't see anyone arguing that it was an unstoppable event. maybe I missed it. While it's hard to universalise; it could be established that the reasons for leaving that were used by voters were irrational, and the reasons for staying were somewhat rational. one needn't answer the larger question of whether it was "right" in order to say whether good reasons were used in the primary arguments presented. I was originally replying to the post that said once populists build up momentum, there is nothing that can be done to stop them (more or less a direct quote). To clarify it's not that I think the vast majority of Brexit voters were motivated by rational process - I think that the grievances many of them felt were entirely avoidable, thus giving brexiteers no opportunity to transplant those grievances onto the EU.
if you're talking about the post on the previous page that I think you are(i.e. recent post by iamthedave, rather than some days old post), I disagree that that's what it said. we could go and analyze it more, or not. might be getting too deep into the weeds.
also not so sure the grievances were avoidable; as manufacturing grievances is a standard part of politics. so while they could be mitigated somewhat; there'd still always be something found. it would depend of course on what the actual grievances are, as opposed to the official stated grievances.
iirc there's some research showing that entirely unavoidable grievances can still be enough to seriously hurt a government/change votes against them.
|
On July 03 2018 03:12 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 03:04 kollin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:59 zlefin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:56 kollin wrote:
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised. ok; but I didn't see anyone arguing that it was an unstoppable event. maybe I missed it. While it's hard to universalise; it could be established that the reasons for leaving that were used by voters were irrational, and the reasons for staying were somewhat rational. one needn't answer the larger question of whether it was "right" in order to say whether good reasons were used in the primary arguments presented. I was originally replying to the post that said once populists build up momentum, there is nothing that can be done to stop them (more or less a direct quote). To clarify it's not that I think the vast majority of Brexit voters were motivated by rational process - I think that the grievances many of them felt were entirely avoidable, thus giving brexiteers no opportunity to transplant those grievances onto the EU. if you're talking about the post on the previous page that I think you are(i.e. recent post by iamthedave, rather than some days old post), I disagree that that's what it said. we could go and analyze it more, or not. might be getting too deep into the weeds. also not so sure the grievances were avoidable; as manufacturing grievances is a standard part of politics. so while they could be mitigated somewhat; there'd still always be something found. it would depend of course on what the actual grievances are, as opposed to the official stated grievances.
I mean, the grievances were the result of choices by numerous governments - economic, cultural, constitutional. The democratic deficit I mentioned before is one. The 2004 choice to allow immediate, unfettered freedom of movement from Eastern Europe is another (not that I'm against immigration, but it produced a backlash). Austerity is another avoidable political decision - what else was the famous promise of £350m a week for the NHS but a backlash against austerity? Anyway all this is somewhat beside the point with regards to the issue of populism within the EU as a whole, because the UK held a very unique position within the EU and it's very hard to compare populism across countries with the Euro and in the Schengen, let alone with a country that isn't.
|
On July 03 2018 03:34 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 03:12 zlefin wrote:On July 03 2018 03:04 kollin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:59 zlefin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:56 kollin wrote:
Again I wasn't even arguing for Brexit I'm arguing that it wasn't some unstoppable event but the result of specific political decisions taken by successive governments. The reasons most people vote for most things are generally irrational, and I think whether Brexit is 'right' or not isn't a position that can be universalised. ok; but I didn't see anyone arguing that it was an unstoppable event. maybe I missed it. While it's hard to universalise; it could be established that the reasons for leaving that were used by voters were irrational, and the reasons for staying were somewhat rational. one needn't answer the larger question of whether it was "right" in order to say whether good reasons were used in the primary arguments presented. I was originally replying to the post that said once populists build up momentum, there is nothing that can be done to stop them (more or less a direct quote). To clarify it's not that I think the vast majority of Brexit voters were motivated by rational process - I think that the grievances many of them felt were entirely avoidable, thus giving brexiteers no opportunity to transplant those grievances onto the EU. if you're talking about the post on the previous page that I think you are(i.e. recent post by iamthedave, rather than some days old post), I disagree that that's what it said. we could go and analyze it more, or not. might be getting too deep into the weeds. also not so sure the grievances were avoidable; as manufacturing grievances is a standard part of politics. so while they could be mitigated somewhat; there'd still always be something found. it would depend of course on what the actual grievances are, as opposed to the official stated grievances. I mean, the grievances were the result of choices by numerous governments - economic, cultural, constitutional. The democratic deficit I mentioned before is one. The 2004 choice to allow immediate, unfettered freedom of movement from Eastern Europe is another (not that I'm against immigration, but it produced a backlash). Austerity is another avoidable political decision - what else was the famous promise of £350m a week for the NHS but a backlash against austerity? Anyway all this is somewhat beside the point with regards to the issue of populism within the EU as a whole, because the UK held a very unique position within the EU and it's very hard to compare populism across countries with the Euro and in the Schengen, let alone with a country that isn't.
Governing always involves choices; and making hard trade-offs. as a result it's always possible to find things to have a grievance about. So if it's not one decision, another can be found. sometimes grievances are really a manifestation of misplaced blame for structural changes that have occurred due to technology and other factors.
At any rate, I think we're getting too far afield, and into too many different contended points; trying to argue on too many different interrelated points all under contention at the same time gets very messy. and we've covered the main issue of rationality or lack thereof sufficiently I think. so I don't have anything more to cover/ask about.
|
On July 03 2018 02:35 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 02:07 Velr wrote:
So then. What are the reasonable explanations for Brexit? Color of your passport? Curvature of bananas? Polish ppl tking yr jewbs?
Seriously? There are problems in GB, like everywhere else, but for which of these can you truely blame the EU? The explanations for Brexit are multifold and it's impossible to point to one with certainty. You could, for example, point to the gutting of local government and a constitutional arrangement increasingly clearly unable to provide particularly representative democracy, especially within England itself, as lying behind the Brexiteer slogan of 'take back control' - people felt, quite understandably, that the control they exercised politically was being increasingly eroded and blamed, somewhat understandably, the undemocratic EU rather than more national undemocratic structures. Brexit, though no one is doing so, therefore presents an opportunity to reconstitute and reform democracy within the UK and truly bring back control to people. What I was arguing against was the idea that, when the populists got up a bit of momentum (and anti-EU populists have been around since the 1970s) it was impossible to stop them. That is a ridiculous idea. A clear moment of contingency for Brexit was the 2015 general election - had Cameron lost, a potential EU referendum would have been kicked at least 6 years down the road and may have turned out differently. I think the 2011 UK veto on the single currency treaty and the 2004 decision to allow immediate freedom of movement from Poland were political decisions that had an enormous impact on the likelihood of Britain staying in the EU. Seeing those that voted for Brexit as irrational places too much stock in the value of the EU economically and as an organisation (I don't doubt the economic cost to Britain will be enormous, what I mean is that there are those who don't care).
As Zlefin has pointed out, you completely misread my post and intent. You can have it out with him since I get the feeling he understands my point.
And no, you're reaching for an explanation that doesn't in any way fit the facts of the arguments being made at the time or the root causes of our issues with the EU. Ironically, you're the one simplifying it.
The real root of Brexit is that we have always, culturally, had a 'go it alone' attitude. Historically we spent most of our time looking down on France and Germany and occasionally going to war with them. The EU project is about a great european spirit that England specifically has never possessed. That's why we were leery about joining in the first place, though it was partially our idea, and why there's always been voices in the government calling for us to leave. The Tories were at first dedicated to keeping us in, then it became a simple political reality, and the voices calling for us to leave had to switch to a different outlet.
Had Cameron lost the 2015 election it's entirely likely Jeremy Corbyn - at best a 'meh' on the EU - would have been happy to hold the referendum anyway once demand for it grew hot enough. UKIP would have kept growing in power, it might even have supplanted the Tories as the legitimate 2nd party unless the Tories pivoted to make their stance only about bringing about a referendum.
But there was nothing 'understandable' about it. It was all a vague 'feeling' people had that we were in the thrall of the EU. That same 'feeling' we've always had, culturally, about this whole pretending we're part of Europe thing, when culturally we never really felt like it.
That's the real root of Brexit. Everything else is constructed on top of that simple cultural fact. We joined because we felt it was the best way to secure lasting peace in the EU (it was), and now we've left because enough time has passed that people don't understand why that matters, and so we return to our basic instinct to go it alone, because we think deep down we're the best and always have.
Many island nations are the same. Pride inverse to size.
This is why the populism worked. It was an appeal to a base English spirit that was partly quelled in the name of a peaceful Europe, the idea of a restoration of true English culture, suppressed by those frogs and Germans across the channel who don't know the first thing about England or care about us.
This wasn't something that was going to go away. Because the EU is exactly that. A deliberate choice to suppress national pride in the name of solidarity and lasting peace and prosperity. Britain's national pride is very similar to the US's: "Screw the rest of you, we're best! And unlike the colonials, we built an Empire to prove it!"
The distance from World War 2, the end of the apparent need for the EU, the blurring of the reasons for why we joined the project in the first place, the fading political interest in the matter (because both sides accepted it as a political reality so stopped discussing it regularly), the uptick in terrorism, all contributed to this sudden resurgence of the idea that British culture needed to be restored. And 'British culture' is not 'EU' in the minds of most people in England. Even most Remainers don't feel that. The Remain argument and campaign was so weak for that precise reason. The Remain argument was based on practicalities, and realities, and the future. It was, again, suppressing the nativist British spirit in the name of lasting peace and prosperity. The Remain side simply felt this was the best thing to do (and they were right).
And you can see that happening during the campaigns, along with the related fallacy: nobody really knew what it was they wanted to have back. It was just a vague 'feeling' of something we'd lost. Something we could only get back by reasserting our individuality on the world stage.
There was nothing we could have done to prevent this happening. If Cameron had lost, it might have maybe kicked the can down the road a few years, if it even did that. But guess what? When the vote came around, it wouldn't have been 52-48, it would have been 60, 70 or more. It was gathering momentum day in and day out and it wasn't going to stop because it wasn't an invented issue. The things people said to excuse it? Those were largely invention. That's where the jingoism showed its ugly head, that's where boris Johnson lied and Michael Gove spewed horseshit, where both sides lied, either to make the EU look better or worse as suited them. But none of that mattered. Nobody cared about the issues, nobody was really deeply reading into the ins and outs of our being in the EU, a deeply boring economic matter far above most people's attention span or even ability to really understand if they had it (I have the attention span, and it is in fact above my understanding; never been a good economist).
The underlying issue was older, deeper than the trappings that played out in the public and on TV. And it wasn't going to go away, no matter what. The only slim chance we had was for the referendum to be called when it was called, and for Remain to win.
Even then, I reckon it would only have killed UKIP and curtailed the discussion for a decade or so.
|
On July 03 2018 03:55 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 02:35 kollin wrote:On July 03 2018 02:07 Velr wrote:
So then. What are the reasonable explanations for Brexit? Color of your passport? Curvature of bananas? Polish ppl tking yr jewbs?
Seriously? There are problems in GB, like everywhere else, but for which of these can you truely blame the EU? The explanations for Brexit are multifold and it's impossible to point to one with certainty. You could, for example, point to the gutting of local government and a constitutional arrangement increasingly clearly unable to provide particularly representative democracy, especially within England itself, as lying behind the Brexiteer slogan of 'take back control' - people felt, quite understandably, that the control they exercised politically was being increasingly eroded and blamed, somewhat understandably, the undemocratic EU rather than more national undemocratic structures. Brexit, though no one is doing so, therefore presents an opportunity to reconstitute and reform democracy within the UK and truly bring back control to people. What I was arguing against was the idea that, when the populists got up a bit of momentum (and anti-EU populists have been around since the 1970s) it was impossible to stop them. That is a ridiculous idea. A clear moment of contingency for Brexit was the 2015 general election - had Cameron lost, a potential EU referendum would have been kicked at least 6 years down the road and may have turned out differently. I think the 2011 UK veto on the single currency treaty and the 2004 decision to allow immediate freedom of movement from Poland were political decisions that had an enormous impact on the likelihood of Britain staying in the EU. Seeing those that voted for Brexit as irrational places too much stock in the value of the EU economically and as an organisation (I don't doubt the economic cost to Britain will be enormous, what I mean is that there are those who don't care). As Zlefin has pointed out, you completely misread my post and intent. You can have it out with him since I get the feeling he understands my point. And no, you're reaching for an explanation that doesn't in any way fit the facts of the arguments being made at the time or the root causes of our issues with the EU. Ironically, you're the one simplifying it. The real root of Brexit is that we have always, culturally, had a 'go it alone' attitude. Historically we spent most of our time looking down on France and Germany and occasionally going to war with them. The EU project is about a great european spirit that England specifically has never possessed. That's why we were leery about joining in the first place, though it was partially our idea, and why there's always been voices in the government calling for us to leave. The Tories were at first dedicated to keeping us in, then it became a simple political reality, and the voices calling for us to leave had to switch to a different outlet. Had Cameron lost the 2015 election it's entirely likely Jeremy Corbyn - at best a 'meh' on the EU - would have been happy to hold the referendum anyway once demand for it grew hot enough. UKIP would have kept growing in power, it might even have supplanted the Tories as the legitimate 2nd party unless the Tories pivoted to make their stance only about bringing about a referendum. But there was nothing 'understandable' about it. It was all a vague 'feeling' people had that we were in the thrall of the EU. That same 'feeling' we've always had, culturally, about this whole pretending we're part of Europe thing, when culturally we never really felt like it. That's the real root of Brexit. Everything else is constructed on top of that simple cultural fact. We joined because we felt it was the best way to secure lasting peace in the EU (it was), and now we've left because enough time has passed that people don't understand why that matters, and so we return to our basic instinct to go it alone, because we think deep down we're the best and always have. Many island nations are the same. Pride inverse to size. This is why the populism worked. It was an appeal to a base English spirit that was partly quelled in the name of a peaceful Europe, the idea of a restoration of true English culture, suppressed by those frogs and Germans across the channel who don't know the first thing about England or care about us. This wasn't something that was going to go away. Because the EU is exactly that. A deliberate choice to suppress national pride in the name of solidarity and lasting peace and prosperity. Britain's national pride is very similar to the US's: "Screw the rest of you, we're best! And unlike the colonials, we built an Empire to prove it!" The distance from World War 2, the end of the apparent need for the EU, the blurring of the reasons for why we joined the project in the first place, the fading political interest in the matter (because both sides accepted it as a political reality so stopped discussing it regularly), the uptick in terrorism, all contributed to this sudden resurgence of the idea that British culture needed to be restored. And you can see that happening during the campaigns, along with the related fallacy: nobody really knew what it was they wanted to have back. It was just a vague 'feeling' of something we'd lost. Something we could only get back by reasserting our individuality on the world stage. There was nothing we could have done to prevent this happening. If Cameron had lost, it might have maybe kicked the can down the road a few years, if it even did that. But guess what? When the vote came around, it wouldn't have been 52-48, it would have been 60, 70 or more. It was gathering momentum day in and day out and it wasn't going to stop because it wasn't an invented issue. The things people said to excuse it? Those were largely invention. That's where the jingoism showed its ugly head, that's where boris Johnson lied and Michael Gove spewed horseshit, where both sides lied, either to make the EU look better or worse as suited them. But none of that mattered. Nobody cared about the issues, nobody was really deeply reading into the ins and outs of our being in the EU, a deeply boring economic matter far above most people's attention span or even ability to really understand if they had it (I have the attention span, and it is in fact above my understanding; never been a good economist). The underlying issue was older, deeper than the trappings that played out in the public and on TV. And it wasn't going to go away, no matter what.
How's Corbyn involved in making decisions about a referendum under an Ed Miliband government?
Besides that, I think the idea that no government made any decisions which made it more likely we would leave the EU doesn't make sense. Absolutely you're right, the English have a unique cultural connection to Europe that is alienated from the French and German connection. I just don't think that the resurgence of this culture in an isolationist form was as inevitable as you do, because I don't think you can reduce Brexit to an assertion of British (and specifically English) nationalism against the European project. Think about how influential economic arguments, such as the £350m a week to the EU - bunk or not - were. You can't reduce Brexit as you do to a rolling cultural ball that politicians had no opportunity to prevent when it is so clearly the result of numerous policy decisions - as well as numerous events outside the hands of British governments - since Britain's accession to the EU. I think any argument for the inevitability of Brexit has to be made from the standpoint of political economy - that being the unique nature of Britain's relationship to the EU being ultimately domestically unsustainable - rather than purely cultural.
|
|
|
Huh. 25 hours of free nursery every week. Should be applied to every Danish national really. Creating a seperate group of citzenship is not the right way to go. Mandatory instruction of "Danish values" including the traditions of Christmas and Easter is pretty strange though. Should be traditions of candles and crime shows.
|
On July 03 2018 04:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Huh. 25 hours of free nursery every week. Should be applied to every Danish national really. Creating a seperate group of citzenship is not the right way to go. Mandatory instruction of "Danish values" including the traditions of Christmas and Easter is pretty strange though. Should be traditions of candles and crime shows.
Apparently it’s only the poors that get their children taken for indoctrination, I mean education.
Seriously, I can see mandatory languages classes, but this seems unhealthy and an easy vector for those kids to be abused.
|
On July 03 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 04:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Huh. 25 hours of free nursery every week. Should be applied to every Danish national really. Creating a seperate group of citzenship is not the right way to go. Mandatory instruction of "Danish values" including the traditions of Christmas and Easter is pretty strange though. Should be traditions of candles and crime shows. Apparently it’s only the poors that get their children taken for indoctrination, I mean education. Seriously, I can see mandatory languages classes, but this seems unhealthy and an easy vector for those kids to be abused.
Money equals Freedom. Or as a conservative in Austria lately put it: "It is the wailing of the worthless."
|
On July 03 2018 04:43 Grumbels wrote:
Some stuff abiut practices in Denmark, it really shocked me reading it just now.
That's pretty wild. I don't think politicians over here like Sanders will cite Denmark as a country we should look towards for visions of the future if this keeps up.
|
I can understand the idea of giving immigrant children the help they need to integrate into Danish society, but the "Danish values" of Christmas and Easter is just a big warning flag that this isn't the intention sadly. Should the children of Danish Aithiest also undergo mandatory instruction? What about poor and lower class Danes? To be fair, I think I would need to read the legalese to form and hear Danish voices to form further opinions.
|
On July 03 2018 05:23 Danglars wrote:That's pretty wild. I don't think politicians over here like Sanders will cite Denmark as a country we should look towards for visions of the future if this keeps up.
Denmark has a rightwing government right now so it's doing some rightwing bullshit. Don't think it's going to affect the general framework of social democracy, which is what Sanders is talking about rather than the treatment of immigrants.
This news made me look up the number of non theists in Denmark, then in Norway, and both are depressingly lower than I thought they were.
|
Not that i like this at all.. But doesn't this on the very baseline say:
Children of poor immigrants have to attend 25 hours of preschool a week?
Which isn't that alien of an idea in countries with mandatory schooling anyway?
|
Looks like we're about to become another european asshole nation.
|
On July 03 2018 05:41 Velr wrote:
Not that i like this at all.. But doesn't this on the very baseline say:
Children of immigrants have to attend 25 hours of preschool a week?
Which isn't that alien of an idea in countries with mandatory schooling anyway?
From and age of 1 isn’t acceptable at all. Normally they wait until the child can speak or communicate in some way shape or form. And can go to the bathroom on their own. And the pre schools normally don't pick a favorite religion or talk about the nation's values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
