E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Everyone seems to forget that before the Federation the old world had to die in nuclear fire.

All things considered I am not a fan of nuclear fire.

 

It was eugenics *then* nuclear fire...

 

Even the Lib Dems didn't include PR in their manifesto, despite having promoted it previously. Reform won't happen soon...

 

Whilst it would be great to have something like that, something similar to the Federation in Star Trek with everyone working towards the same goal for the betterment of humanity, there is one problem with it and that is, not everyone will want to be ruled by one government and live to only 1 set of rules.

Humanity would be so much better off if we could all work together on issues, but as a race we choose to fight each other and treat other people differently because of the smallest difference.

We are all guilty of treating people differently because we don't like something about them, and that could be outright hatred because of 1 of many reasons, to just not talking to them in the same manor as someone who we do like, everyone treats someone differently everyday whether they realise it or not.

Eventually I think humanity will get close to the likes of the Federation from Star Trek but it's going to take a long time and for the "Worlds Leaders" to stop acting like petulant children and realise as a species we can do so much more than we currently are.

Until that day comes, we will still have the in-fighting and stupid arguments/wars over the smallest of things.

 

I think the species will die off before that happens.

 

I don't think this.

But I think people are defined by the choices they make, and how they vote is an important choice that has consequences. One should not be surprised if people draw certain conclusions based upon that. I'm not accusing you of this, but it's childish (and fairly common) for people to treat voting as some abstract game and then cry foul whenever it has any actual effect on their life.

 

I love it how vicious anti-immigrant rhetoric in the tabloids, in the EU Referendum and in the GE campaign is ignored, but woe betide someone suggesting that voters may have been swayed by nationalist/racist sentiments.

Dominic Cummings is certainly on record stating that the immigration won the EU Referendum. Both Michael Gove and Arron Banks later admitted exaggerating scare stories about immigration during the campaign to sway voters. We all remember Farage's "Breaking Point" poster, of course. I posted earlier an interesting analysis of what appears to have motivated voters in this GE to support the Tories. Nationalism? You betcha.

The UK government has called EU immigrants like me "citizens of nowhere", "bargaining cards" and "queue jumpers", and recently Boris Johnson told us to "stop treating this country as if it was our own". How do you expect me to interpret that in any other way than that I was just a commodity to be tolerated, rather than a valued contributor to British society? How welcome do you expect me to feel after that? So yes, I am planning to leave. And frankly I do not think any Leave/Tory voter has the right to feel butthurt about that.

 

I agree people are defined by the choices they make, I get defined a racist because of my hair cut (shaved head) now people don't think, about why I have a shaved head they just see me as a racist.

I am over weight and they define me as lazy but it's actually due to medical/injury reasons, and whilst I would like to do something about it, I generally feel fine with my weight at the moment and will do something about it when I am ready to.

Those are some of my choices, just like I define my brother as someone who is going to kill himself with work, because he works 18 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week but again it's his choice.

Unfortunately people as you say treat voting as a game, and that is unfortunately I don't think ever going to change.

Yeah the anti-immigrant stuff was annoying to read and most people ignore the fact it might have changed some peoples opinions and how they voted.

The problem is not everyone was swayed by it, but to some people they are all racist.

I have no issues with immigrants, I think they add to the country in many different ways, 99% of them beneficially impact the country but there are those who do not benefit the country and unfortunately those are the ones most people remember or talk about.

I understand some immigrants feeling less welcome in the country recently, and I feel sorry for them because that shouldn't be happening.

As for someone leaving the country because of the government, I feel sorry that they feel that way because they should not be made to feel that way but I do understand it, and hope anyone that does leave are happy where ever they go.

 

On one occasion Farage actually publicly blamed immigrants for his being delayed in heavy traffic, on the M4, when travelling to a meeting...

I blame Farage and UKIP for actively promoting anti-immigrant sentiment and right-wing Tories for jumping on the bandwagon, as they saw blaming immigrants and Muslims was popular with the gutter press reading masses.

It seems those who see that this is a country founded on immigration, from all across Europe and Scandinavia over centuries and, like many western economies, that this country needs immigration to function properly, are in a minority. We also, as a country rich enough to be in the G7, have a responsibility to help people at risk of death or persecution in their home countries, by offering asylum and safety in the UK.

 

While they may not be that way themselves they did lend their vote to some people who are, they've empowered such views. Now those may not be views they agree with but unfortunately voting isn't a shopping list of what you do and don't agree with, you either take the entire bundle or don't.

This isn't a godwin as it's an example: People in 1930's Germany may not have agreed with everything the Nazi party stood for but they did lend them their vote and by extension were responsible for what happened there after.

Oh and BTW that's not just a Conservative/Brexit thing, the same applies to those who voted Labour with the whole antisemitic thing.

 

Take in isolation vote share of the biggest party in the last two elections:

2017 General Election,
(considered a very poor result for the conservatives where they lost their majority)
42.4%
2019 General Election,
(considered a very good result for the conservatives where they gained a commanding majority)
43.6%

Our current system does seem to indicate fairly drastic changes in public opinion that maybe don't really exist.

I understand the payoff is meant to be a decisive government that can act without being crippled by opposing factions disagreeing (how well has that worked in recent years?...). However I'm not sure that is worth it at the expense of a government that doesn't really fairly reflect the people of this country and by it's minority nature tends to swing from pillar to post.

 

But, and this is where labour and the lib-dems ****ed it imo... FPTP means where you get the votes matters as much, if not more than how many you can get. Getting a stonking majority in 1 seat means little if you fall short by a handful of votes in 10.

Labour especially are holding up the raw number of votes they got as some kind of victory, like it actually matters. It matters about as much as Clinton supporters banging on about the popular vote share.

S'not how it works. It's never been how it worked.

 

I'm not saying it's how it works, or that it has ever worked like that (in this country at least), and by extension clearly is doesn't matter in practical terms. I'm just questioning whether it's a good thing that it works like it does.

Hypothetically if you have 8 subtly different parties all with a similar share of 80% of the popular vote and one extreme party with 20% of the vote (all spread evenly across the country), under first past the post (without tactical voting) you could have the extreme party forming a commanding majority government. Obviously for various reasons it is more reflective of the people than this in real life, but it's maybe indicative of a problematic system.

 

No, no it doesn't, a million no's.

FPTP distorts public opinion, creates an us vs them situation, promotes a tyranny of the majority, makes for short term policy decisions (the undoing and reinstating of past legislation), bad policy making (that bad bit of the legislation is nothing to worry about), and probably loads more of poop things that escape me.

 

Vote Leave deliberately rode the racist tiger to victory; hence that victory will always be tainted by its association. It was a choice, and it has consequences.

Moreover both the Leave vote, and the GE vote against Corbyn and for Johnson seems most definitely driven by nationalist motivations: of the state putting White British working class people first.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

But what does Boris Johnson really think of the "blue collar army"?

"If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment... The result is that in families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole – in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, Neets [not in education, employment or training] and mug you on the street corner.." --Boris Johnson, in the Spectator, 1995

 

Sorry, but the Tories are going whole-hog for the racism schtick. Voting for them is voting for racism.

Not to say labour are much better, but I'd not be voting for them either. Corbyn is better suited to a potting shed than politics.

That said, I've not really seen any politician in recent times that has particularly appealed. They all seem either monumentally stupid or aggressively racist.