Ashley Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Is he coming to visit you? I personally think you should encourage to come for the main reason to show that the majority in this country are not racist, bigoted or intolerant at all. I'm meeting him on route. I moved out of that backwater fuck pit years ago. I'm just super sensitive about my European friends right now. They're feeling rejected, sensitive and are being attacked (Twitter but still). I think it would just make things worse.
pratty Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) This vote has perfectly illustrated why the EU and international government is such a bad idea. The majority of British posters in this thread are displeased, they have been out voted by the majority and have to live with the consequences, 51% can tell the other 49% the way it's going to be. This flaw of democracy is magnified the larger it is, more people may have to live unhappily under the decisions of the majority. If you have a population of 11, you can have 5 unhappy people living under the majoity of 6, if you increase it to 21, now you have 10 unhappy people living under the majority of 11, and so on. If there was an actual vote within the EU you could have over 200 million people (multiple countries worth) pissed off with the result. Obviously you can never satisfy all the people all the time, but the bigger the political body, the greater the potential to force on an increasing number of people a political/economic/cultural direction they don't like. So what can you do if you're not happy? Leave. I hope that "sovereignty" is worth the destruction of the United Kingdom, the end of free trade with the EU, the end of free movement throughout the EU, the destruction of our economy, the likely dismantling of the entire EU, and the ruination of millions of livlihoods throughout the world as we probably slip into another global recession (one which will have dire consequences that extend beyond the economic impact and into the political landscape of the entire world). None of the leave voters is forcing the break up of the UK, it's up to the Scottish if they want to leave or not (just as it was up to the British whether to leave the EU or not), that's the beauty of self determination, they now have a choice if they want it, the UK or the EU, and genuinely good luck to them whatever they choose. I'm a true liberal (not a modern SJW 'liberal' that wants everything they don't like banned), I have a bias towards freedom, as much as it's fashionable to talk about "intergration" and "cooperation" etc, and as inconvenient as it may be for us, people shoud have the right to seperate if they want too. Same goes for the other EU countries, the UK leaving isn't forcing other countries to do anything, if it breaks up it's because it freely choose to. Why shouldn't other countries decide to leave the EU if they want to? Why should countries feel obliged to stay for the convenience of others? If the EU is such a great idea why is it's collapse apparently imminent because one country left? The "free trade" of the EU was anything but free. It was highly condtional and the market literally had a multi billion pound entrance fee. If the EU and British government really wanted free trade they should have just got out of the way and let businesses get on with it. What the EU effectively does is hold free trade hostage and demands compliance. I'm confident we will continue to trade and do business because it's in everyone's interests to make it happen, it may be a bumpy ride for a while but I think we'll work it out, optimism rather than pessimism can only help. Edited June 24, 2016 by pratty
bob Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 This vote has perfectly illustrated why the EU and international government is such a bad idea. The majority of British posters in this thread are displeased, they have been out voted by the majority and have to live with the consequences, 51% can tell the other 49% the way it's going to be. This flaw of democracy is magnified the larger it is, more people may have to live unhappily under the decisions of the majority. If you have a population of 11, you can have 5 unhappy people living under the majoity of 6, if you increase it to 21, now you have 10 unhappy people living under the majority of 11, and so on. If there was an actual vote within the EU you could have over 200 million people (multiple countries worth) pissed off with the result. Obviously you can never satisfy all the people all the time, but the bigger the political body, the greater the potential to force on an increasing number of people a political/economic/cultural direction they don't like. So what can you do if you're not happy? Leave. None of the leave voters is forcing the break up of the UK, it's up to the Scottish if they want to leave or not (just as it was up to the British whether to leave the EU or not), that's the beauty of self determination, they now have a choice if they want it, the UK or the EU, and genuinely good luck to them whatever they choose. I'm a true liberal (not a modern SJW 'liberal' that wants everything they don't like banned), I have a bias towards freedom, as much as it's fashionable to talk about "intergration" and "cooperation" etc, and as inconvenient as it may be for us, people shoud have the right to seperate if they want too. Same goes for the other EU countries, the UK leaving isn't forcing other countries to do anything, if it breaks up it's because it freely choose to. Why shouldn't other countries decide to leave the EU if they want to? Why should countries feel obliged to stay for the convenience of others? If the EU is such a great idea why is it's collapse apparently imminent because one country left? The "free trade" of the EU was anything but free. It was highly condtional and the market literally had a multi billion pound entrance fee. If the EU and British government really wanted free trade they should have just got out of the way and let businesses get on with it. What the EU effectively does is hold free trade hostage and demands compliance. I'm confident we will continue to trade and do business because it's in everyone's interests to make it happen, it may be a bumpy ride for a while but I think we'll work it out, optimism rather than pessimism can only help. I suppose the EU works because the rich nations support the poorer ones. You'll notice that all the other nations now clamouring to leave are all the richest ones. If they all vote to leave, it will collapse. It's kind of like if the super rich decided they didn't like paying taxes anymore, and so decided to just stop paying them. Then all the other rich people were like, hey that's a great idea! So they all stop too. And then all the poor people are fucked.
Sméagol Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Yeah this is pretty funny.. People, this is were you're headed: Anyway, Goodbye UK.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) Is he coming to visit you? I personally think you should encourage to come for the main reason to show that the majority in this country are not racist, bigoted or intolerant at all. That's what we all say and I would like to believe that... But this country feels right-winged with every election. Beyond the skinhead hooligan shouting crap on the street, there are layers of racism and intolerance that a lot of people [who are not usually a victim to it] can not detect. I'm just annoyed plans of migrating out of the UK might be difficult or that little bit more stressful. Someone mentioned that migration is a privilege, I believe it should be a right - why should people have to be bound by a nation just because they were born there? This country is highly polarized, and it makes me feel uncomfortable raising a family here. Without an empire, without the EU - I'm really uncertain as to how strong Britain actually is. Edited June 24, 2016 by King_V
Sméagol Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 You're next Netherlands! Yes, we're nexit. Anyway, you're joking, but I was googling for any suitable reaction images or whatever, but this was the first thing that popped up: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/dutch-britain-quitting-eu-geert-wilders-netherlands I really don't see it happening, then again, I don't actually follow the news.
bob Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 I was only partially joking. That's what I was referring to.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Cornwall votes for Brexit, yet pleads for EU funding... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html
pratty Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 I suppose the EU works because the rich nations support the poorer ones. You'll notice that all the other nations now clamouring to leave are all the richest ones. If they all vote to leave, it will collapse. It's kind of like if the super rich decided they didn't like paying taxes anymore, and so decided to just stop paying them. Then all the other rich people were like, hey that's a great idea! So they all stop too. And then all the poor people are fucked. The compulsion to pay taxes by force, and for the rich to pay prortionately more taxes, is a contentious issue for another debate. Your comparison though implies that we should be morally compelled to be a member of the EU, I don't believe we should. Sorry but I'm not prepared to give up self determination to the EU at the convenience of less well off EU countries. I'm just annoyed plans of migrating out of the UK might be difficult or that little bit more stressful. Someone mentioned that migration is a privilege, I believe it should be a right - why should people have to be bound by a nation just because they were born there? Oh I completely agree you should have the right to leave, I just don't think any country you happen to choose should be obliged to let you in, expecially if you're just going there as an economic migrant. Think about the implication of saying admittance to any country should be a right, we'd be saying that there is no point at which a country can ever say they are full and won't let anyone else in, because to do so would be to infringe your rights. Completely free and unrestricted immigration would result in an increase in migration and the majority of migrants would concentrate the prefered places to live. This would cause overcrowding, multi-cultural issues, the over burdening of public services and resources, and increased competition for jobs and housing, leading to lower wages/conditions and the increased cost of property. The concentration of wealth and prosperity in these areas may also attract an increase in crime there. These are the perfectly reasonable considerations for any country to implement a controlled immigration policy. And controlled immigration doesn't even have to mean less immigration, it just means you control it. Depending on their circumstances some countries might require less immigration, some might require more immigration, some might need migrant workers of a certain skill more than other skills. The EU (with its one size fits all open immigration policy) doesn't know what each EU country requires better than those individual countries themselves do. That's why I think the UK should have complete immigration control.
sumo73 Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 I find it absolutely sickening that Sturgeon is using this to further her agenda. She calls it democratically unacceptable for Scotland to be taking out of the EU against it's will yet she has no problem forcing another independence referendum down the throats of the 55% percent who dismissed the last independence referendum. It will be a 'Neverendum', meanwhile food banks, lack of social housing, health, cost of living, education and other issues will be put on the back burner while another referendum takes place and at what cost I wonder?
Choze Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 This vote has perfectly illustrated why the EU and international government is such a bad idea. The majority of British posters in this thread are displeased, they have been out voted by the majority and have to live with the consequences, 51% can tell the other 49% the way it's going to be. No I think based on what you are saying its clearly an emotional vote. You are using the term international government and suggesting the EU are some sort of overlord government that the UK have to follow no ifs or buts... I would say Scotland under the UK is a better example for what you are getting at right now. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) Oh I completely agree you should have the right to leave, I just don't think any country you happen to choose should be obliged to let you in, expecially if you're just going there as an economic migrant. Think about the implication of saying admittance to any country should be a right, we'd be saying that there is no point at which a country can ever say they are full and won't let anyone else in, because to do so would be to infringe your rights. Completely free and unrestricted immigration would result in an increase in migration and the majority of migrants would concentrate the prefered places to live. This would cause overcrowding, multi-cultural issues, the over burdening of public services and resources, and increased competition for jobs and housing, leading to lower wages/conditions and the increased cost of property. The concentration of wealth and prosperity in these areas may also attract an increase in crime there. These are the perfectly reasonable considerations for any country to implement a controlled immigration policy. And controlled immigration doesn't even have to mean less immigration, it just means you control it. Depending on their circumstances some countries might require less immigration, some might require more immigration, some might need migrant workers of a certain skill more than other skills. The EU (with its one size fits all open immigration policy) doesn't know what each EU country requires better than those individual countries themselves do. That's why I think the UK should have complete immigration control. I see the EU as the only hope to absolve these archaic 'issues' - multi-culturalism shouldn't be an issue, I'd hope in 2016 human beings can live together without pandering towards an insular "birds of a feather stick together" mentality - and lets be real, racist attitudes were a big element of Brexit, even though we see time and time again how immigration has helped the general economy; I've met a handful of Polish, Italian and Spanish immigrants with degrees and Masters waiting tables, and know British people who flunked and left school who would rather be on Job seekers allowance than do a job considered menial - but are coming on camera complaining about no jobs. Education and classism is a bigger problem in this country. But of course you're right, there should be a strategy for immigration based on skill-set and demand. But also the willingness to want to integrate to that society (language and so on). Edited June 24, 2016 by King_V
pratty Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) No I think based on what you are saying its clearly an emotional vote. You are using the term international government and suggesting the EU are some sort of overlord government that the UK have to follow no ifs or buts... I would say Scotland under the UK is a better example for what you are getting at right now. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union I stand by my point, Europe is too big and diverse to legislate across on internal matters, the more people decision makers make decisions over, the more people they will dissappoint. Sure we can negotiate deals and opt outs, but this is a compromise, conditional and it requires EU approval, that's not being in complete charge of yourself and that's not good enough for me. Edited June 25, 2016 by pratty
Choze Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 You edited it out but I was thinking why you said EU citizens should take part in voting lol. I am seeing a lot round about justification for why you voted the way you did on a predominately (maybe) stay forum. Including some very interesting EU governance and immigration reasons (which is not surprising). I guess the worry for stay types now is how far are people willing to go? We now have another major recession coming. How much self inflicted damage is ok? That is not just for this referendum but a bigger question for the long term.
sumo73 Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 No I think based on what you are saying its clearly an emotional vote. You are using the term international government and suggesting the EU are some sort of overlord government that the UK have to follow no ifs or buts... I would say Scotland under the UK is a better example for what you are getting at right now. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union "Now, Everything is done in Europe, and Europe doing this, Europe doing that really means the Commission has the powers of initiation and the ministers are under pressure to go along with them, and the public are kept out completely out! The European Parliament has no particular power - you don't elect members anyway, you just follow the list system. So you don't have local representation. The whole thing has been structured to keep the people of Europe from any approval at any stage.... It's a European federation, of a kind...It is an empire being built before our eyes, and what you do about it can't be a nationalist response; it has to be a democratic response". Tony Benn - 19th December, 2007 (The Last Diaries p.48) On Thursday if there had been a third option when voting "Stay in a reformed European Union" then I would have voted for that straight away. A reformed union that Jeremy Corbyn had spoken about during the campaign but the reality was how possible was that option and how soon could that have happened. It has taken the UK to leave the EU to prompt Greece's Prime Minister to say "We need an immediate change of course, democratic and progressive breakthroughs in Europe - changes in perceptions, mentalities and ultimately changes in policies". The idea of the European Union was a good idea but it needs progressive change to become something greater than it is. Last year I was completely against the UK holding any EU referendum especially when we had more important things to sort out. Last year I was very much pro EU but since last year I've seen the refugee crisis being handled badly by the EU and the rise of nationalism across Europe. People complain about how now racism has won in this EU referendum in the UK but I suggest you travel to certain parts of Europe. I hate the fact that several EU states love all the benefits of being in the EU especially with the free movement of people only don't like it when new people move to them who are fleeing for their lives. There are other things I want to say but I'm tired out by all of this... In an IN/OUT referendum there is a only a binary choice, there is no third option. We now must accept the result as painful as it is to some, heal some big divisions across the UK and move forward together.
Rummy Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 It's kind of like if the super rich decided they didn't like paying taxes anymore, and so decided to just stop paying them. Then all the other rich people were like, hey that's a great idea! So they all stop too. And then all the poor people are fucked. What you did there. I saw it.
pratty Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 You edited it out but I was thinking why you said EU citizens should take part in voting lol. No you misunderstood, I didn't say anything about other EU citizens voting in our referendum, I said (or at least meant) with the EU it's worse than just being on the wrong end of a referendum vote, you don't even get one. But I later re-read that and thought actually seeing as we so rarely have referendum votes in British politics anyway it's probably not fair to expect them often in EU politics either, so I deleted it. Maybe though as immigration is such a big topic with people, perhaps the it would be democratic of the EU to give people a vote on it. Though doing so runs the risk of exposing a policy of actually being something the majority of people don't want. guess the worry for stay types now is how far are people willing to go? We now have another major recession coming. How much self inflicted damage is ok? That is not just for this referendum but a bigger question for the long term. Would it be fair to say this is as much a consequence of being in the EU in the first place? When someone finds themselves in a messy divorce it's not the divorce they regret, it's usually the marriage. Since I can remember our EU membership has been somewhat contentious and the prospect of a referendum was talked about for some time. I honestly don't know, but at the time when we were signed up were we made aware of just how economically painful deciding to leave, as is our right, would be?
Cube Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 Out of interest, as "democracy" was one factor, are we going to change our voting so that we choose our Prime Minister? Because at the moment it's not something we actually choose.
Blade Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 Out of interest, as "democracy" was one factor, are we going to change our voting so that we choose our Prime Minister? Because at the moment it's not something we actually choose. I would love this. Unfortunately it won't happen as we have a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is actually undemocratic. I would much prefer a US style federal system with clear separation of powers.
Serebii Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 I would love this. Unfortunately it won't happen as we have a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is actually undemocratic. I would much prefer a US style federal system with clear separation of powers. So that if one part is completely against something the prime minister/president is trying to push forth, they can just stop it i.e. the gun control bills, universal healthcare etc.? and then sue the president for failing to deliver on his promises. No. US system is a good idea on paper, but it's broken as fuck.
Blade Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) So that if one part is completely against something the prime minister/president is trying to push forth, they can just stop it i.e. the gun control bills, universal healthcare etc.? and then sue the president for failing to deliver on his promises. No. US system is a good idea on paper, but it's broken as fuck. Congress is there to limit the effect of one person. But anyway as we have a parliamentary democracy we won't have a say who is PM (unless of course you are member of the Conservative Party). Edited June 25, 2016 by Blade Automerged Doublepost
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215/signatures/new
Kav Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215/signatures/new I posted this on Facebook: I see shares of a petition going round calling for a 2nd EU Referendum. I voted Remain and will not be signing said petition and I think any petition should not even be considered unless it obtains more votes than the Leave campaign acquired... 17.5 million. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point in democracy?!
Recommended Posts