Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

UK EU membership referendum

1567810

Comments

  • ArgasArgas Member Posts: 174
    The right wing are mongols....

  • AnduinAnduin Member Posts: 5,745

    Yeah, but many of the reasons for retarded growth in Western Europe are due to the domestic policies of member states rather than the EU. In the United States Texas recovered very quickly from the 2008 downturn, but its doubtful that they would have been better off if they had left the union in 2011. Just because the UK is growing faster than the average EU member state doesn't mean that this trend will continue when they leave.

    Ummm... Okay... So are you saying that the reasons for the lack of growth in the Eurozone is due to all the countries having, in your words, retarded domestic policies?

    Are you then actually saying the only country with good domestic policy was Britian?

    And we just left?

    Oh my! Europe is doomed!

    PantalioniKrivetko
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    Anduin said:

    Yeah, but many of the reasons for retarded growth in Western Europe are due to the domestic policies of member states rather than the EU. In the United States Texas recovered very quickly from the 2008 downturn, but its doubtful that they would have been better off if they had left the union in 2011. Just because the UK is growing faster than the average EU member state doesn't mean that this trend will continue when they leave.

    Ummm... Okay... So are you saying that the reasons for the lack of growth in the Eurozone is due to all the countries having, in your words, retarded domestic policies?

    Are you then actually saying the only country with good domestic policy was Britian?

    And we just left?

    Oh my! Europe is doomed!
    You are using the term "retarded" in a completely different manner. If you're going to base "good domestic policy" on GDP growth, then the UK is certainly not the only country with good domestic policy (Ireland's growth in GDP was more than double the UK's last year).

    You are also missing my point, which is that just because the UK is healthier than other EU nations while in Europe does not mean that this will continue after they leave. The UK's GDP grew 2.3% percent in 2015 (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tec00115&language=en), but many are anticipating huge drops, especially if the UK fails to strike a new trade deal and adopts protectionist policies that many leave voters want. Open Europe says that the most likely scenario is that the UK ends up between a "0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030" depending on what policies it adopts and what kind of new deal it is able to get from Europe. (http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/)

    Its not a simple as saying "the EU is struggling and therefore if we leave we'll be better off". A LOT depends on what happens next.

    sparkleav
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,723
    UK has lost it's Triple A credit rating (no way to spin that as a positive). The mayor of London is demanding more anonymity for the city (and how can anyone who isn't totally full of it on the Leave side object to that at this point??). Both the President of the European Commission and Angela Merkel said there will be no negotiations until the UK officially notifies that they are leaving (basically, put up or shut up).

    Anduinjackjack
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    @argas - like some nationals are "vermin"? Please, this kind of language is not that cool, unless you endorse it. Not really, I hope?

    I am wondering if this eruption of nationalistic sentiment and racism is also down to "first past post" electoral system, maybe the most reflective of the class-society that UK is. Mainstream opinions are stretched too wide, and alternative voices are quenched.

    In Finland, coalition governments, and the temperate and compromising necessity is natural. In this setting "UKIP" can be in the government- in Finland it is - only it is but the smallest of three right-wing coalition parties, and crumbling in support in view of having had to take actual responsibility.

    In this Referendum, Tory UKIP-ideologues were not forced out of the party, and Farage could shout quite freely from his martyred side-lines...

    booinyoureyesMontresor_SP
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Pantalion said:



    FinneousPJ:

    Under the EU agreement in question, the restriction is on anything that "incites violence or hatred against individuals based on their ethnicity/race/nationality/religion/age/gender" and so on.

    Do you agree with my estimation that this definition is unreasonably broad? If so, I would suggest we have no disagreement, since my main concern is that this falls well beyond "protecting the rights of another person" and deep into "wrongthink" territory, where it can just be used to eliminate any dissenting opinion under the guise of "inciting hate".

    If you disagree and think that it this policy and its wording is justified, I would politely ask that you explain your position, because I cannot see it.
    @Pantalion What restriction? We're still talking about a code of conduct, which by my understanding, is not mandatory to sign. If this were to be a law, yes, I think it would need clearer wording and a strict definition.
    Pantalion said:



    To change the topic somewhat, I'll also note that, intentional or not, this tangent started with me effectively being accused of wanting to incite violence against immigrants, while responding to a post where Leave supporters were being branded as racists and xenophobes.

    It's called reductio ad absurdum. It's not an accusation.

  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    edited June 2016

    Pantalion said:



    FinneousPJ:

    @Pantalion What restriction?

    Anything that prevents certain actions is a restriction. This code of conduct restricts things, and the restriction is exactly what I already said:
    ... The restriction is on anything [of any type of content] that "incites violence or hatred against individuals based on their ethnicity/race/nationality/religion/age/gender" and so on.
    We're still talking about a code of conduct, which by my understanding, is not mandatory to sign. If this were to be a law, yes, I think it would need clearer wording and a strict definition
    Imagine that people have a habit of convening in a farmer's field to peacefully protest against the Government, which the farmer doesn't mind unless they start getting too rowdy.
    A government official turns up and "has a word" with the farmer, who then tells the people they can't assemble in his field anymore.

    It wasn't "mandatory" for the farmer to start banning people from talking, and it's within his powers to ban people from his field, but hopefully you agree that it's the government that took action in this example, which would be against the human rights act and their oath to respect the right of assembly, and now the people have to use one of the boggy fields that nobody ever visits to try and use their right to assembly.

    The farmer is effectively carrying out a public function by working against the electorate on behalf of the government, using government policy.

    Clearly a government does not need to suppress the populace with laws when it can work through corporations, and as you've shown it's a lot easier to get away with it.
    It's called reductio ad absurdum. It's not an accusation.
    Off-Topic Explanations about argument types:


    I said that it may be unintentional, and I'm neither offended nor upset, just using it as a springboard into the current political divide. In this case, however, it was a straw man and an ad hominem. Let's switch the narrative:

    "The EU decides women's health is the least important health by making abortions illegal."
    " So you think the government does not care about your health because you cannot murder innocent unborn children? Okay then."

    Note that the statement is targeted against me [Ad hominem: Against the individual], accuses me of wanting to engage in immoral behaviour, and does not logically follow on from the statement [The difference between a Straw Man and Reductio Ad Absurdum], which does not mention anything about my hatred of children.

    An example of reductio ad absurdum in regards to my Free Speech argument might be "So we should do away with slander and libel rules entirely? Let people shout fire in crowded theatres and blurt out state secrets in the streets?"

    Note that this focuses on the argument [we should not restrict speech] and brings it to a logical extreme [no controls on speech whatsoever] to reveal the weakness of the argument to help further discussion.
    TStael said:

    I am wondering if this eruption of nationalistic sentiment and racism is also down to "first past post" electoral system, maybe the most reflective of the class-society that UK is. Mainstream opinions are stretched too wide, and alternative voices are quenched.

    I'll take a moment to point out that a 57% increase in racism between two arbitrary periods doesn't actually carry much statistical weight (the national average of 13 incidents a day is naturally going to have spikes and dips over the year). The media is hamming it up, just as they have the financial instability, and just as they play down violence and extremism against Leavers and the elderly.

    I'll also point out that while extremism of any kind is a problem, there are very few people currently espousing extreme nationalism. "Nationalistic sentiment" has many benefits to the preservation, security and function of a nation state by increasing integration and unity.

    That said, yes, there is a widespread feeling of disenfranchisement which is part in due to the FPTP system but it's not just that. Right wing nationalist parties throughout Europe have been rising in popularity in retaliation to increasing multiculturalism and globalism.

    The system does have advantages, but strong governments that consistently fail to represent 75% of the population (and lie to the other 25%) have not truly represented the majority for years. The system is also ripe for abuse should any particular group manage to figure out bloc voting, moving people around the country to pick up seats to gain a parliamentary majority with only 20-30% of the population.

    We do desperately need electoral reform, and a codified bill of rights, but there's little motivation for any party to provide that change when they're winning, and there are no mechanisms to remove a ruling party for failing to keep to its manifesto promises either, which there should be.

    Hopefully the political turmoil will work out in a few positive changes all across Europe, including permitting idiot school children to vote, and "I wasn't ready for that one" rules for repeating referendums and general elections until they're happy with the outcome.

  • Mr2150Mr2150 Member Posts: 1,170
    The UKs current position:


    The leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

    Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

    Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

    Clear?

    Pantalionsparkleavjackjackbooinyoureyes
  • sparkleavsparkleav Member Posts: 871
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    And to make it all worse, the current favourite is Theresa "Sharia Law" May. *Sigh.*

  • ArgasArgas Member Posts: 174
    Did anyone else than me get a warning for racism..its easy to pick a victim. Even easier when its someone used to it.. I'm not someone who became gay. I'm not someone who changed the color of my skin. I'm not someone who burn the Qur'an, or do things with biblical pages or someone who enforce the religion I was born with unto others. I'm not the one who judge someones religion or tell someone he is wrong colored. Or throw things at handicapped people. I know many people here are racist and would do things like that. But no. We got someone here and he will take the hits

  • ArgasArgas Member Posts: 174
    Most of you people talk about free speech and religion as if it is something you invented. But you know what you don't have the guts for free speech we all know who begin crying like little babies

  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,248
    Argas said:

    Most of you people talk about free speech and religion as if it is something you invented. But you know what you don't have the guts for free speech we all know who begin crying like little babies

    That's great. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?

    booinyoureyesMontresor_SP
  • ArgasArgas Member Posts: 174
    jackjack said:

    Argas said:

    Most of you people talk about free speech and religion as if it is something you invented. But you know what you don't have the guts for free speech we all know who begin crying like little babies

    That's great. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
    Nothing more than should be careful talking about Islam.

  • Yulaw9460Yulaw9460 Member Posts: 634
    edited November 2018
    Deleted.

    Post edited by Yulaw9460 on
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,723
    Johnson not even running. How utterly appropriate. Set fire to the country and walk away. Coward.

    jackjack
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162

    Johnson not even running. How utterly appropriate. Set fire to the country and walk away. Coward.

    1. Johnson only supported leave because he wanted to be prime minister! Selfish!
    2. Johnson doesn't want to prime minister! Coward!


    Pantalion
  • Mr2150Mr2150 Member Posts: 1,170
    I think Johnson has positioned himself as the cavalry.

    Whoever is elected by the Tories will make a huge mess of things (I'm absolutely certain of that) and so once things start to fall apart, Boris is in a position to ride in and save the day.

    If I were one of the 5 candidates, I'd very publically give Boris the job of running things 'on my behalf' while I managed everything else, thus preventing him doing that.

  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited July 2016
    @Pantalion , you said:

    "I'll take a moment to point out that a 57% increase in racism between two arbitrary periods doesn't actually carry much statistical weight (the national average of 13 incidents a day is naturally going to have spikes and dips over the year). The media is hamming it up, just as they have the financial instability, and just as they play down violence and extremism against Leavers and the elderly."

    "I'll take a moment to point out that a 57% increase in racism between two arbitrary periods doesn't actually carry much statistical weight (the national average of 13 incidents a day is naturally going to have spikes and dips over the year). The media is hamming it up, just as they have the financial instability, and just as they play down violence and extremism against Leavers and the elderly."



    I say:


    But when you argue this, you surely know two arbitrary periods are comparable, or business as usual. Control factors explained.

    You seem not to recognize that Brexit was a major "event."

    Like fall of the Berlin wall was an event. Or the assassination of Kennedy. Or Apartheid coming down. Or Hitler gaining power post Hindenburg's death.

    If you need a structured mental pleasure-house, Daily Mail has a lively comment space. This is not that space. It is ok to support Brexit, but racism is not ok.



    Edit: I sometimes get inward indentation on comments of mine. Never been up to correct proper thus far, but this approximates.
    If you need a structured mental pleasure-house, Daily Mail has a lively comment space. This is not that space. It is ok to support Brexit, but racism is not ok.

    Post edited by elminster on
    ButtercheeseMr2150jackjack
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited July 2016
    In Finland Johnson would be Soini - "UKIP" equivalent in the government, most delightfully not allowed to cheer UKIP from the fringes, but from the government. Which simply means duplicitous behaviour.

    Soini travelled to the UK as "private person" - as opposed to praising UK Brexit from his actual position of power. Soini is the Finnish foreign minister - he can just simply congrat UK, and not engage first class expenses to meet UKIP.

    Hu-hoo - Boris tried the same thing. And tell you Soini - both me and my bro love that you cannot openly celebrate Brexit, because - oooops, you are in the government.

    U bad? :trollface:

  • ButtercheeseButtercheese Member Posts: 3,768
    TStael said:

    This is not that space. It is ok to support Brexit, but racism is not ok.



    I really don't understand much about politcs.
    But it's never okay to support racism (or any comparable label based intolerance) in any way or shape.
    Preach.

    Mr2150sparkleavMontresor_SP
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited July 2016
    Just to put this forth as I see it: I love my Scandi neighbours, and think Finland has the best out there! And having Estonia at par with Sweden, is important, really I think, for us Finns.

    Also, Hungary is very important to us Finns - even if the ongoing politics might not stack. I am a pro-European, and also think Hungary matters a great deal to us.

    Post edited by TStael on
    lolienButtercheese
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    If I cared not for Britain - I'd gleefully made the spread finger opinion at the face of Johnson.

    Whom is "Brave Sir Robin" - is he not?

    But I also think UK needs must to define its neighbours in terms of affection. No-one well loved? =Brexit.

  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    I do apologize for not understanding brexit as I should-

    Except maybe: It is an aggressive disenfranchisement, is it not?

    I am a slightly disillusioned Finn, yet the Scandi thing is more important. I love my neighbours, all of them, and would feel destroyed if none loved us in return!

  • Mr2150Mr2150 Member Posts: 1,170
    edited July 2016
    So... for 17 years he has campaigned and used his position as an MEP to try to force BREXIT. He achieves that aim, and then quits as the leader of UKIP ... BUT keeps his cushy 78k EUR / year job. The very thing his campaign messages complained about.

    MASSIVE hypocrite.

    sparkleavTStael
  • sparkleavsparkleav Member Posts: 871
    Exactly what I thought. He got what he wanted and quit. Yet another party looking for a leader.

    Mr2150
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    My thought at this point: Brexit result must be respected, but not pandered to.

    The fact that all of Cameron, Johnson, Farage have stepped aside is pretty telling - the first was the architect of Brexit, and the other two the opportunistic cheerleaders.

    With May the frontrunner, it seems the worst scenario comes true: no general election, and pretty hard-right stance. (as : I do not rule out expatriating the EU nationals)

    Also, what happens in Labour party is monumentally ill-judged and self-indulgent coup, which I certainly hope fails.

    Why? Because...

    ...when the electoral system is first past post, party democracy is even more paramount than with relative representation. In that, the plotters could jump two additional parties (greens and centrists) beside having two already, SDP and Socialists.

  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    Mr2150 said:

    So... for 17 years he has campaigned and used his position as an MEP to try to force BREXIT. He achieves that aim, and then quits as the leader of UKIP ... BUT keeps his cushy 78k EUR / year job. The very thing his campaign messages complained about.

    MASSIVE hypocrite.

    Of course. Only now he hopes to cherry pick as in going out for publicity provoking opinions, and getting his Euro salary without criticism from his own. Plus in sterling it has appreciated, of course.

    @Mr2150 - do you really think UK media will ignore him? Or his own criticize the bolstered salary and benefit, only better more the sterling slump?

    Of course not. So it'll be win-win for Farage.

    I hate that perso. But so painfully easily facilitated by the "serious" modern politics, or no?

Sign In or Register to comment.