Philosophy Discussion Forums

Karpel Tunnel wrote:From within the EU the UK has happily gone along with all sorts of things including Gulf War 2 on garbage grounds and with France as a third partner destabilizing Syria which led to the crisis. What EU allows is for the Neo Cons to influence one big country and dissent amongst members gets stifled.

I don't see your point. If the UK has happily gone along with all sorts of things, no problem. The issue I was talking about is that the US ambassador has clearly stated what we already knew, that we should do whatever the Trump administration wants (regardless of how happy or unhappy it makes us), or else we go to the back of the trade queue/line. And that includes scrapping existing deals, such as the Iran Nuclear Deal, if the Trump administration tells us to. It makes all future deals meaningless because they can be arbitrarily, unilaterally changed or dumped at any time and we must agree to do so or face economic attack. Trump recognizes the simple fact of life that, ultimately, international law is dictated by how much economic and military power you have. The only way to fight back against that is to unite. That's what unions do. They unite.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 6:24 am

Me wrote:So perhaps all such votes should have a "try before you buy" principle? Just as our statutory consumer rights mean that we can return a product that we've bought if it turns out to be defective, perhaps that should also be true of political "products"?

On second thoughts, the trouble with political "products" is that it often takes years for the defects to become apparent. By that time we've already opened the packaging, inserted the batteries, thrown away all those little bits of twisty wire that held it to the packaging and generally voided the warranty. I think it's going to be very difficult to return the leaving of the EU in its original packaging so that the supplier can resell it to someone else.

Unfortunately, political parties and government are not held accountable to standards as set down in the Trades Description Act 1968 or the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Poor decision, policy ? Tough. Even a Prime Minister can swan off leaving the electorate to deal with the fall out. This is not good enough. There has to be another way, but what ?

Perhaps something like this ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_referendum

Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 5:34 am Now that the realities have hit home:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-remain

"People voted to leave the EU on the promise of more money for the NHS from the membership fee, access to markets and more trading opportunities, and taking back control of our borders,” he says. “People are now realising that a lot of those promises won’t be delivered.”

Well I didn't vote to leave for any of these reasons, but lets not let that get in the way of a Guardian polemic.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 4:12 am

Mark1955 wrote:If you wanted to deride their intelligence "Brexnit"

I guess so. But to be consistent with "remoaner" it would have to not deride their intelligence so much as accuse them of moaning/winging/complaining. "Brexwinge" doesn't really work.

But Brexit people aren't moaning, we've got what we want, however in the views of the remoaners we were stupid to want it so I think it allows them to reflect their view of us.

A lot of Brexit supporters appear to be concerned that the Brexit they're getting isn't "hard" enough. Not hitting our European neighbours hard enough. Hence Farage going back on tour. So I suppose us remoaners could say to the likes of him: "You've got the chaos, broken government, business uncertainty and destruction of good relations with the neighbours that you voted for. So stop moaning and enjoy it."

Mark1955 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2018, 3:55 pm

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 4:12 am

I guess so. But to be consistent with "remoaner" it would have to not deride their intelligence so much as accuse them of moaning/winging/complaining. "Brexwinge" doesn't really work.

But Brexit people aren't moaning, we've got what we want, however in the views of the remoaners we were stupid to want it so I think it allows them to reflect their view of us.

Brexiters are moaning. Many will not be satisfied until this country is a broken wreck, a poor cousin of Europe begging for crumbs on the periphery.
Are they going to get their NO DEAL?

Mark1955 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2018, 3:50 pm

Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 5:34 am Now that the realities have hit home:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-remain

"People voted to leave the EU on the promise of more money for the NHS from the membership fee, access to markets and more trading opportunities, and taking back control of our borders,” he says. “People are now realising that a lot of those promises won’t be delivered.”

Well I didn't vote to leave for any of these reasons, but lets not let that get in the way of a Guardian polemic.

So for what reasons did you vote Brexit?
Was it square bananas?
Or did you vote to leave the EU because of immigration from the rest of the world?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 1:50 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:From within the EU the UK has happily gone along with all sorts of things including Gulf War 2 on garbage grounds and with France as a third partner destabilizing Syria which led to the crisis. What EU allows is for the Neo Cons to influence one big country and dissent amongst members gets stifled.

I don't see your point. If the UK has happily gone along with all sorts of things, no problem.

My point was it's a non-issue. This threatened independence of the UK does not exist.
And as I said, the EU will allow Corporations easier Control of european decisions as a whole. It is not going to lead to allied but different large entities, such that European nations can resist the US.

But Brexit people aren't moaning, we've got what we want, however in the views of the remoaners we were stupid to want it so I think it allows them to reflect their view of us.

I would also like to know why you voted to leave?
Allow me to answer my own question. Personally I know very little about the EU (and even less during the voting period) and it's laws, institutions, politics and so on. Certainly I am not remotely qualified in any way to give anything like a remotely intelligent answer to a yes/no question. So I started with a coin toss, which already I don't like. Then of course the leave campaign was overtly racist, which I don't really like either. Actually the leave campaign had a lot of moments I can remember. Made up stuff written on buses, denigration of expert opinion (never a good sign historically), complaints about not being sovereign even though we can leave thus proving sovereignty (to name one proof), a politician being murdered, complaints about losing culture made by extremely comically uncultured people. To be honest the remain campaign more or less passed me by, I can't remember a single claim. I think they said it would cost us money, but I forget how much. It was a pretty weak campaign truth be told, quite negative about what we would lose. At least the leave campaign had some positivity, even if it was made up lies.
So currently ideally I wouldn't make the decision and I don't want to politically insensitive bigotry, racism and small mindedness so I was leaning towards remain. Remain in my eyes was the equivalent of not making a choice.
Then I stumbled upon an interesting YouTube video by Michael Dougan. He is an actual EU lawyer. Said some interesting stuff about what sovereignty means and what the EU does and just how complex it is. Also made some good points regarding time scales and man power which seem to have held up pretty well so far, guess it will take twenty odd years to be sure.
Ultimately I wouldn't employ someone to do something horribly complex with massive repercussions which they didn't want to do and in whom I had no trust in their abilities.

Eduk wrote:I would also like to know why you voted to leave?

It's a long topic now. He told us something about that in some earlier posts.

Steve, do you think that another referendum would result in remain with Europe ?

Belindi wrote: ↑September 4th, 2018, 10:17 am Steve, do you think that another referendum would result in remain with Europe ?

I suppose the remainers could get referenda until they got the right answer, but with what respect would that leave democracy?

I think there is a big lesson to learn here. Whilst politicians are happy to allow the British media to scapegoat foreigners, refugees and immigrants, and the public is willing to swallow that ****, then there are going to be bad consequences.
Brexit is going to continue, but I doubt that oh so obvious lesson is going to be learned.

We asked for democracy so we'll just have to swallow the results.

It struck me today that what we are witnessing is the last stand of the British Empire. Brexit has been engineered by public school morons indoctrinated in jingoism, such as Mogg and Boris who think we can go it alone against the rest of the world. To say these fools are living in 19thC would be an understatement. Without the EU the UK has been in steady decline since the end of WW2. Thatcher's time was a false blip bouyed up by a bogus property price boom, but no real increase in material wealth. After Brexit we are going to be back on course to be the fetid remains of a once large empire and all we will have left is the statues and monuments of the past whose bronze will eventually be melted down to pay for food from foreigners.

Truly we have the democracy we deserve.

Thomas, is it truly democracy when the owner of the Mail successfully encouraged geriatric jingoism?

No intention of answering for Thomas. But there is no law stating that the Daily Mail must be read?